[Matt_Cohn]

PGA Tour pros' reactions to the Blue Monster have been surprisingly mixed with players like Ian Poulter, Rory McIlroy, and Bubba Watson letting it be known that they don't like the course very much. I think we all expected that the Gil Hanse renovation would produce near-unanimous approval. Additionally, the course is clearly a bomber's paradise — almost an unrivaled bomber's paradise, in fact, given the results of the past two years. (This year's top 3 was Dustin Johnson, J.B. Holmes, and Bubba Watson. The next two were Adam Scott and Henrik Stenson. Watson and Johnson were in the top 4 last year along with Patrick Reed and Jamie Donaldson.)

So is something "wrong" with the Blue Monster? And if so, what would you "fix"? Be reasonable here — don't say they should bulldoze it. What would you do if Gil Hanse told you he was busy so the responsibility for any upcoming changes fell to you?

My two ideas would be:

• Vary the carry distances for some of the fairway bunkers. Take out a few of the short and medium ones, maybe, and add in a few much longer ones. Currently it seems like the longest hitters can carry all of them while the regular hitters can carry none of them.
• Grow a little bit of rough to reduce the number of long, wayward drives that end up being "just fine".

I think 18 needs a little "fixing" at this point but that's a separate conversation.   

Thoughts?

[Jason Thurman]

It's supposed to be a really demanding golf course with plenty of risk and reward opportunities. As long as the pros are complaining while posting lots of eagles, birdies, bogeys, and "others" with several lead changes in the final round, I assume it's doing its job. That seemed to be the case this year, so no changes needed. I wouldn't spend any more money until the pros start lauding the course. At that point, something is wrong.

[Stephen Davis]

It's supposed to be a really demanding golf course with plenty of risk and reward opportunities. As long as the pros are complaining while posting lots of eagles, birdies, bogeys, and "others" with several lead changes in the final round, I assume it's doing its job. That seemed to be the case this year, so no changes needed. I wouldn't spend any more money until the pros start lauding the course. At that point, something is wrong.

You are right on! Seems pretty ideal for the pro game right now and seems like one of the few courses they play on tour that I would actually really enjoy playing. Win-win.

[Frank M]

I think the course is a very strong venue since the changes and I quite like them. I found this years tournament to be the most interesting there in a long time. 

[Jeff_Mingay]

Unanimous approval of a golf course among PGA Tour pros would suggest a pretty boring design, I think. Doral-Blue seems to be a bit polarizing, which is a good thing.

Moreover, it's only been in-play for two years. I think a bit more WGC data is required before any short term criticisms result in alterations to any particular hole.

[Terry Lavin]

It seems like a perfectly appropriate too-hard-for-me but just-tough-enough for the pros kind of golf course.  That's a pretty good mix for a resort course.  I'd say they can leave it alone.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
I know what you are saying but I don't completely agree with your comment that a high level of approval by tour pros always means a boring design.  There are plenty of great courses out there that are definitely not boring and have almost every pros approval.  I think the difference can be in "the course set up" as poor course set up can ruin even the greatest golf course (remember Shinnecock Hills)!  I only watched portions of the tournament but to me the greens looked super fast (borderline silly) and I have never been a big fan of steep shaved down banks.  As just one example, I saw the replay of the one shot JB hit into the front center of #1 green and watched it roll straight toward the flag then veer off to the right, down a steep bank and into the water!!  The architecture got blamed but to me that is as much poor course setup as anything.  It made the green design look over the top and you could see why it got a lot of complaints.  

Lots of people like to see the pros humbled on TV but to me if you are humbling the best golfers on the planet, likely the course conditions/course set up is out of control.  

[Jason Topp]

It seems to me that much of the bomber's advantage on this course relates to the greens - which are firm and protected in front.  I don't think you can get rid of that without gutting any connection to the original designer.

[Matthew Petersen]

It seems to me that much of the bomber's advantage on this course relates to the greens - which are firm and protected in front.  I don't think you can get rid of that without gutting any connection to the original designer.

That's true but those greens will only get less firm as time goes on. Recently renovated greens always tend toward being firm.

[George Pazin]

Lots of people like to see the pros humbled on TV but to me if you are humbling the best golfers on the planet, likely the course conditions/course set up is out of control.  

I disagree with this entirely.

It's not a matter of wanting to see them humbled. It's a matter of seeing them tested. And by tested, I do not mean the ability to hit it the exact distance your caddie requests under pressure. I mean being able to see and hit the exact shot required under pressure, whether it's a stop and drop, or a bump and run.

It's interesting that you bring up Shinnecock. For the amount of criticism leveled, that, to me, and Sandwich '03, were the most compelling pro tourneys since 2000, and probably earlier. But maybe I'm just weird.

Not humbled, just tested.

Completely.

[Mark_Fine]

Sorry George, the set up at Shinnecock Hills was a disaster.  I know that course very well and it was sad and embarrassing how they had it set up.  I didn't mean to take the focus off Doral.  I liked Shackelford's comment I just saw on The Golf Channel about Doral, "at 13 on the stimp, it is not really about putting".  Takes away from the architecture.

[Michael Whitaker]

The complaints seem to be based on so many of the holes bordering water. A miss results in a penalty shot and those add up quickly. The second shot that Holmes hit into number one on Friday (or was it Saturday?) set off the firestorm. He felt (as did many of the announcers) that hitting a "perfect" six iron into a 560 yd par five should be better rewarded than a ball in the water. A few announcers took the position that the hole was never designed for that play, but a lot of players feel they should have the "right" to overpower a hole without consequence and not be "forced" to play for position.

If most of the water was something else... sand, rough, waste areas... would there be as much complaining from the pros? I don't think so.

If Holmes' ball on #1 had rolled off into rough instead of the water would be have bitched so much about the hole or the course. I don't think so.

[astavrides]

• Vary the carry distances for some of the fairway bunkers. Take out a few of the short and medium ones, maybe, and add in a few much longer ones. Currently it seems like the longest hitters can carry all of them while the regular hitters can carry none of them.

Absolutely. It is completely unfair in that regard now.[/list]

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff,
I know what you are saying but I don't completely agree with your comment that a high level of approval by tour pros always means a boring design.  There are plenty of great courses out there that are definitely not boring and have almost every pros approval.  I think the difference can be in "the course set up" as poor course set up can ruin even the greatest golf course (remember Shinnecock Hills)!  I only watched portions of the tournament but to me the greens looked super fast (borderline silly) and I have never been a big fan of steep shaved down banks.  As just one example, I saw the replay of the one shot JB hit into the front center of #1 green and watched it roll straight toward the flag then veer off to the right, down a steep bank and into the water!!  The architecture got blamed but to me that is as much poor course setup as anything.  It made the green design look over the top and you could see why it got a lot of complaints.  

Lots of people like to see the pros humbled on TV but to me if you are humbling the best golfers on the planet, likely the course conditions/course set up is out of control.  

Good points, Mark. I agree.

[Ian Mackenzie]

The "post-Hanse" Doral Blue Monster is an exact parallel of its bombastic owner: fat, caustic, narrow-minded, unrelenting, unforgiving with misplaced hyperbole at every turn.

I loved the Bubba/DJ/JB duel on Sunday. Perfect symbolism of the market that Trump wants to attract.

If I was to be invited to play there, and I happened to be in town with nothing else to do, I doubt I would accept. Like ALL of Trump's properties, I would pass as I think he is one of this planet's "all-world jackasses."

How he creates a sustaoinable hospitality business when he regulary insults over 50% of the US market is beyond me. So, I have a new rule: whenever I consider or am invited to play one of his courses, I will decline and instead donate $350 to charity.

My personal opinion is that the televised tournament repels as many guests as it atracts. For the money, there are 50 other destinations that are more fun and interesting to play.

OK, it's good theater to see the pros humbled. But, every shot, every approach, every hole just looked the same.

No, thanks.

(Fortunately, I played Turnberry 10 times before he got his mitts into that one.)

[Brent Hutto]

The complaints seem to be based on so many of the holes bordering water. A miss results in a penalty shot and those add up quickly. The second shot that Holmes hit into number one on Friday (or was it Saturday?) set off the firestorm. He felt (as did many of the announcers) that hitting a "perfect" six iron into a 560 yd par five should be better rewarded than a ball in the water. A few announcers took the position that the hole was never designed for that play, but a lot of players feel they should have the "right" to overpower a hole without consequence and not be "forced" to play for position.

If most of the water was something else... sand, rough, waste areas... would there be as much complaining from the pros? I don't think so.

If Holmes' ball on #1 had rolled off into rough instead of the water would be have bitched so much about the hole or the course. I don't think so.

Yeah, it's funny. Imagine if some Tour player tries to hit the ball over a pond in front of a green. Saying at Augusta. And say he can't quite make the carry and it rolls back into the hazard. That's widely considered a case of the player going for it when he ought to have laid up.

Yet when he tries to hit the ball onto a green with a hazard *beside* the green, fails to hold the green and the ball rolls into the hazard that's not the player fault? Hard to see their point. Either you can make the shot or you can't. That's what practice rounds are for.

[Jon Wiggett]

• Vary the carry distances for some of the fairway bunkers. Take out a few of the short and medium ones, maybe, and add in a few much longer ones. Currently it seems like the longest hitters can carry all of them while the regular hitters can carry none of them.

Absolutely. It is completely unfair in that regard now.[/list]

Is that not down to poor design in the end.

Jon

[Mark_Fine]

Brent,
Watch the video of the shot.  His 6I was hit higher and softer than most people's wedges    

[Matthew Sander]

It also seems that player criticisms (and praise) rarely address the design features. Often times when they are asked for their opinion on the course what they actually discuss is the presentation or setup. The golf media, and consumers of the message, then misinterpret those responses as thoughts on the course design. It is certainly fair for them to comment on presentation, but I would personally like to hear more comments about features and strategy from players. That won't happen though because they feel the course setup impacts their performance more so than design, and it seems they primarily see courses through that lens.

[Brent Hutto]

Mark,

And yet that high, soft shot was not sufficient to hold the green. For my part that admits two questions, one trivial and one interesting.

The trivial question is, "Was there some other shot that would hold the green" to which the answer is that of course he could have laid up and hit a shorter shot in there.

The interesting (to me) question is, "Does a green which refuses to accept even the best-struck 240-yard approach shots necessarily mean a less interesting hole than one which will reward a well-struck 240-yard approach with an eagle putt".

For me the answer to the second question is, "Not automatically". But then again I can see that some people find 240-yard approach shot and eagle putts to be the most exciting element of the professional game.

P.S. If I were JB Holmes I would find any green that rejects a "perfect" 240-yard 6-iron to be objectionable. Of course the young man wants to be rewarded as often as possible for hitting shots that only 0.000001% of golfers can physically accomplish.

[Mark_Fine]

Brent,
Did you watch the video before commenting further?

[JMEvensky]

P.S. If I were JB Holmes I would find any green that rejects a "perfect" 240-yard 6-iron to be objectionable. Of course the young man wants to be rewarded as often as possible for hitting shots that only 0.000001% of golfers can physically accomplish.

Exactly.These guys are playing for their livelihoods.Their perspective is different from anyone posting on this board. Whether that's a good thing is moot.

[Brent Hutto]

I saw the shot replayed on TV. Twice or maybe three times unless I'm mistaken.

[George Pazin]

Sorry George, the set up at Shinnecock Hills was a disaster.  I know that course very well and it was sad and embarrassing how they had it set up.  I didn't mean to take the focus off Doral.  I liked Shackelford's comment I just saw on The Golf Channel about Doral, "at 13 on the stimp, it is not really about putting".  Takes away from the architecture.

A disaster? A setup that left arguably the world's hottest golfer against one of the other world's best golfers? Would it have been a disaster if Tiger 2K had shown up and won by 15?

Olympic '98 was far far far worse than Shinnecock, and yet doesn't seem to get nearly the notoriety.

When you are testing the world's best, you have to push things to the limit. Sometimes a little thing goes wrong. Big deal, they're the best, deal with it. Goosen did.

[Jason Thurman]

First we had the podcasters who wanted to slow down Royal Melbourne and soften Riviera's greens. Now we have the people who don't want to see any rollout on 240 yard fades hit to greens sloping left-to-right toward water that increasingly cuts in as the pin is challenged.

You people are going to HATE this year's Open Championship course...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()