Great architecture produces great champions

[Ran Morrissett]

The last four Majors have been held at Lytham, Kiawah, Augusta and Merion and were won by Els, McIlroy, Scott and Rose.

The Big Easy's swing has long been admired and to me, the three best swings in golf at present have won the last three majors.

Do you think it is a coincidence that great courses help great players/swings rise to the top?

Of course not!

Great architecture plays a vital role in making golf the best game ever. And that's why the study of architecture is so important. Great architecture isn't any more expensive than crummy design yet it makes the game so much more multi-layered, complex, and fulfilling.

The more people/clubs understand what constitutes great design elements, the more the game will flourish. 

Very neat the role that books and TV and web sites can play in that effort.

Best,

[Jim Nugent]

Whenever I hear this argument, I am reminded that neither Jack nor Tiger ever won at Riviera...and Torrey Pines has repeatedly seen Tiger and Phil win. 

[BCrosby]

"Great architecture plays a vital role in making golf the best game ever. And that's why the study of architecture is so important. Great architecture isn't any more expensive than crummy design yet it makes the game so much more multi-layered, complex, and fulfilling.

The more people/clubs understand what constitutes great design elements, the more the game will flourish."

Quite so.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran,

What kind of champion would poor or inferior architecture produce ?

[Mike Sweeney]

GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture.  

Great architecture isn't any more expensive than crummy design yet it makes the game so much more multi-layered, complex, and fulfilling.

At the risk of achieving Shivas-like status,  here goes:

With the exception of natural sites like Wild Horse, great architecture is expensive. There is no greater example than the budgets between The West and The East at Merion. It was not cheap to rebuild those bunkers on The East, and the maintenance budget was published here a few years back, but I remember the The East budget being multiple times that of The West.

This weekend we saw the HUGE difference between a Top 10 course holding a US Open and a Top 35-50 course like Bethpage Black, which I also love, but it is not Merion. Bethpage has climbed in price since the US Open, and Merion's guest fees have climbed since the announcement. Neither is cheap, and I get the "privilege" of paying NY State taxes for the cheaper rate at Bethpage.

I love playing the Raynor designer 9 hole Hotchkiss for $15, but it ain't Merion or Bethpage !!

[Lou_Duran]

Whenever I hear this argument, I am reminded that neither Jack nor Tiger ever won at Riviera...and Torrey Pines has repeatedly seen Tiger and Phil win. 

An example of confirmation bias?

[Tom_Doak]

Ran,

What kind of champion would poor or inferior architecture produce ?

Well put.

The fact that guys with pure swings win majors has very little to do with architecture.  It's about a swing that holds up under pressure ... and the fact that two of those guys were able to use a long putter to offset their previous trouble with the short game.

[Phil McDade]

Ran,

What kind of champion would poor or inferior architecture produce ?

Orville Moody.

Lucas Glover (more the set-up than the architecture, but they are of a piece)

[BCrosby]

The best players win on both good and bad courses. Less good players also win on good and bad golf courses. I don't see a causal connection between the quality of the architecture and the quality of tournament winners.

But Ran's larger point, which I do agree with, is that good architecture makes the game more interesting and fun. That is crtically imporant in an era when we are having problems attracting and keeping golfers.

I also agree about the "no more expensive" part. Unless you are maintaining a course for a major or trying to keep it at the top of the rankings for reputational reasons, MacK as right. Good gca will pay for itself over the long term.

Bob

[Dan Moore]

So where would Michael Campbell fit into this equation?

Bob I agree on great golf architecture being critically important, but just as important golf needs to be more fun than it would ever be on a great golf course set up the way Merion was this week. 

[BCrosby]

Dan -

I do not mean to suggest that the set-up at Merion last week is a model for good gca. It is not. I too worry, however, that many people will see it that way.

Great seeing you and your daughter at the forum.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

It would be interesting to rank the quality of multiple major championship hosts listed in another thread and compare the champions at each venue to see how well Ran's premise holds up. 

[Terry Lavin]

Ran,

What kind of champion would poor or inferior architecture produce ?

Well put.

The fact that guys with pure swings win majors has very little to do with architecture.  It's about a swing that holds up under pressure ... and the fact that two of those guys were able to use a long putter to offset their previous trouble with the short game.

This rings true to me.  I will say that some of the setups on other great designs left us with the "luckiest golfer" or the "pluckiest putter" but I greatly prefer a champion who comes across as the best ballstriker in addition to being the player who was best in control of his nerves under enormous pressure.  This is what Justin Rose demonstrated on the great, albeit greatly altered, architecture of Merion.

[Paul Gray]

GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture.  

Great architecture isn't any more expensive than crummy design yet it makes the game so much more multi-layered, complex, and fulfilling.

At the risk of achieving Shivas-like status,  here goes:

With the exception of natural sites like Wild Horse, great architecture is expensive. There is no greater example than the budgets between The West and The East at Merion. It was not cheap to rebuild those bunkers on The East, and the maintenance budget was published here a few years back, but I remember the The East budget being multiple times that of The West.

This weekend we saw the HUGE difference between a Top 10 course holding a US Open and a Top 35-50 course like Bethpage Black, which I also love, but it is not Merion. Bethpage has climbed in price since the US Open, and Merion's guest fees have climbed since the announcement. Neither is cheap, and I get the "privilege" of paying NY State taxes for the cheaper rate at Bethpage.

I love playing the Raynor designer 9 hole Hotchkiss for $15, but it ain't Merion or Bethpage !!

Nonsense.

TOC.

[Jason Topp]

Not at all a scientific comparison but I tried to create comparison groups for "greats" and "lesser lights" for the Open Championship and the US majors that overlap.  My take is that better courses do tend to produce better champions than lesser lights.  

I tried to pull the champions from 1900 and later:

Open Championship

Greats:
St. Andrews - Lois Oosthuizen; Tiger Woods (2X); John Daly; Nick Faldo; Seve Ballesteros; Jack Nicklaus (2X); Tony Lema, Kel Nagle, Bobby Locke; Peter Thomson; Sam Snead; Dick Burton; Denny Schute; Bobby Jones; Jock Hutchinson; James Braid (2X); JH Taylor.

Muirfield-  Els, Faldo (2X), Watson, Trevino, Nicklaus, Player, Cotton, Alf Perry, Hagen, Ray, Braid (2X);

Lesser lights

Sandwich:  Clarke, Curtis, Norman, Lyle, Rogers, Locke, Whitcombe, Cotton, Hagen (2X); Vardon, White
Troon: Hamilton, Leonard, Calcacecchia, Watson, Weiskopf, Palmer, Locke, Havers

US Open/PGA
Greats:
Oakmont – Cabrera, Els, Nelson, Miller, Nicklaus, Hogan, S. Parks, Armour, Mahaffey, Snead, Sarazen
Merion – Rose, Graham, Trevino, Hogan Dutra
Shinnecock Hills – Goosen, Pavin, Floyd

Lesser Lights
AAC – Pate, Nelson, Toms, Keegan Bradley
Hazeltine – Yang, Beem, Stewart, Jacklin
Medina #3 – Woods (2X); Irwin, Lou Graham, Middlecoff

[Matt Kardash]

I agree with Tom. I never felt there was a co-relation between great architecture and the winner. I think people just want to believe there is. It's like wanting to believe in God in the light of no evidence. It feels good to believe so people believe it. No offense to people who believe in god. I dont want to turn this into that kind of debate! Was  just an example!

Ran,

What kind of champion would poor or inferior architecture produce ?

Well put.

The fact that guys with pure swings win majors has very little to do with architecture.  It's about a swing that holds up under pressure ... and the fact that two of those guys were able to use a long putter to offset their previous trouble with the short game.

[Dan Kelly]

I think great golf architecture produces great golf -- great to play (well or badly) and great to watch.

Does it produce great champions? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

(If Justin Rose never wins another major, he'll be lumped in with the likes of Lucas Glover -- no matter how pretty his swing.)

Seems to me that the difference between the winners and the losers in events like the US Open is: Which guy's ball hits the wicker and bounds into trouble? Which guy's perfect putts fall, and which guy's lip out? And I don't think that has much, if anything, to do with the architecture.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

I'd include Pebble Beach on your "great" list, and US Open winners there have been Nicklaus, Watson, Kite, Woods and McDowell -- the two best players in the game, probably one of 10 or so best in the game, and two guys who enjoyed long, successful careers with multiple Ryder Cup appearances.

And don't forget Augusta: Jack 6 times, Tiger and Palmer 4, Mickelson, Faldo, and Snead with 3, and Seve, Watson, Player and Hogan among those with 2 wins. That's 10 of the 15 or 20 or so of the best players, ever, with multiple wins there (including the two best ever).

[Joel_Stewart]

Ran,

What kind of champion would poor or inferior architecture produce ?

Well put.

The fact that guys with pure swings win majors has very little to do with architecture.  It's about a swing that holds up under pressure ... and the fact that two of those guys were able to use a long putter to offset their previous trouble with the short game.

This rings true to me.  I will say that some of the setups on other great designs left us with the "luckiest golfer" or the "pluckiest putter" but I greatly prefer a champion who comes across as the best ballstriker in addition to being the player who was best in control of his nerves under enormous pressure.  This is what Justin Rose demonstrated on the great, albeit greatly altered, architecture of Merion.

For the sake of argument, Olympic Club with the exception of Billy Casper.

Jack Fleck, Scott Simpson, Lee Janzen?   Now you have a young guy in Webb Simpson who hasn't won since the 2012 US Open so the jury is still out.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ran - because you posted this after the 2013 US Open, I have to say: I can't understand the role the architecture played in identifying a great champion without factoring in the (important, perhaps even over-riding) role of the USGA set-up in that regard.

I liked the course and the championshiop much more than I thought I would, but I can even begin to figure out how much of Rose's win (besides the fact that he's a wonderful golfer) was due to the design and how much of it was due to the dozen's of USGA calculations (rough, width, speeds, pins etc etc) made in the context of its championship philosophy.

I think the USGA's biggest win this weekend was a communications/marketing one: they managed to get every media outlet and every talking head to agree to the 'Merion held its own' messaging, while having very few asking either a) at what cost to the course and to the architecture?, or b) what does a course 'holding its won' actually mean? 

This past weekend, the USGA (via the mainstream media) gave the American public its answer to the latter question: Even Par for 72 holes is what 'holding its own' means.  I think that's a bad answer for golf and golf course architecture -- but no one seems to have noticed; even YOU seem to see this even par score at Merion as something that will 'help the game flourish'.
 
I think the answer is a bad one because the 'energy inputs' (money, time, labour etc etc) required to get and keep a course up to that 'standard' (ie 'holding its own) flies in the face of every sustainability model I can think of moving forward.

Peter

[Martin Toal]

Not at all a scientific comparison but I tried to create comparison groups for "greats" and "lesser lights" for the Open Championship and the US majors that overlap.  My take is that better courses do tend to produce better champions than lesser lights.  

I tried to pull the champions from 1900 and later:

Open Championship

Greats:
St. Andrews - Lois Oosthuizen; Tiger Woods (2X); John Daly; Nick Faldo; Seve Ballesteros; Jack Nicklaus (2X); Tony Lema, Kel Nagle, Bobby Locke; Peter Thomson; Sam Snead; Dick Burton; Denny Schute; Bobby Jones; Jock Hutchinson; James Braid (2X); JH Taylor.

Muirfield-  Els, Faldo (2X), Watson, Trevino, Nicklaus, Player, Cotton, Alf Perry, Hagen, Ray, Braid (2X);

Lesser lights

Sandwich:  Clarke, Curtis, Norman, Lyle, Rogers, Locke, Whitcombe, Cotton, Hagen (2X); Vardon, White
Troon: Hamilton, Leonard, Calcacecchia, Watson, Weiskopf, Palmer, Locke, Havers

US Open/PGA
Greats:
Oakmont – Cabrera, Els, Nelson, Miller, Nicklaus, Hogan, S. Parks, Armour, Mahaffey, Snead, Sarazen
Merion – Rose, Graham, Trevino, Hogan Dutra
Shinnecock Hills – Goosen, Pavin, Floyd

Lesser Lights
AAC – Pate, Nelson, Toms, Keegan Bradley
Hazeltine – Yang, Beem, Stewart, Jacklin
Medina #3 – Woods (2X); Irwin, Lou Graham, Middlecoff

I am not sure this works. The hypothesis that good courses beget good players seems logical, but the good players play at the bad courses too, and should still be in the mix there. If this works, it probably only works for good/great courses.

There are a few players missing. For example, Andy North? He is a good example of something, although I am not sure what it is exactly.

[Jason Topp]

I am not sure this works. The hypothesis that good courses beget good players seems logical, but the good players play at the bad courses too, and should still be in the mix there. If this works, it probably only works for good/great courses.

There are a few players missing. For example, Andy North? He is a good example of something, although I am not sure what it is exactly.
[/quote]

Martin - Names are missing because I tried to pick out courses that would widely be considered great and list the champions and compare them with courses considered not to be in the same class but that have hosted the same championships.  This is a small sample of a comparison that could be done more broadly but I have neither the time nor the inclination to go to that much work.

Augusta cannot be used in this comparison because the Masters is not held at another course and the Masters seems to me to be a different type of event than the PGA/US Open whixch, in recent years at least, seem close enough to be comparable.

[Phil McDade]

Augusta cannot be used in this comparison because the Masters is not held at another course and the Masters seems to me to be a different type of event than the PGA/US Open whixch, in recent years at least, seem close enough to be comparable.

Jason:

Augusta has produced very few flukey winners-- maybe Immelman, arguably Coody, maybe Tommy Aaron. Others? Not George Archer or Gay Brewer -- they both had solid PGA careers.

Compare to the US Open -- Moody, Glover, Campbell, S. Jones, North, Fleck and Furgol. None of those folks have distinguished golf careers. I'd add in Yang, Michell and Grady for the PGA.

[Mac Plumart]

I can't understand the role the architecture played in identifying a great champion without factoring in the role of the USGA set-up in that regard.

Great point, Peter.

Not necessarily related to the Merion set up, more of a general statement, poor maintenance can neuter great architecture.  And I do mean maintenance practices, which is different from a well manicured golf course.  (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,55839.0.html)

[Sam Morrow]

I don't think great architecture produces great champions, great architecture produces great tests.