[Scott Macpherson]

So here's an idea...


The NBA has primarily become an offensive game. Defence is important and we all like to see big blocks etc, but fans love the slams, dunks, 3-pointers and high powered assists. World Cricket has done the same with T20 a huge hit worldwide with viewers wanting to see big 6s every over.


What if we did that for golf? How would it look? So apart from the Majors, primarily the Tours (US and European) set up the courses shorter, and encouraged more dynamism with par 3's measuring 140-180y, short par 4's with 'speed slots', areas of the greens that funnel the ball to key pin locations. Par 5s would be reachable in 2 shots like the 13th at Augusta. High Risk High Reward golf but courses closer to 6000y than 7000y. Forget about par (and especially protecting it), the focus is excitement because, after all, golf is only entertainment.


Could this be the future for our game?


Scott

[Ben Hollerbach]

I'm afraid too many people want to suffer on the golf course. So many players have the option to move up tees to play shorter, more attackable courses, but they would much rather move as far back as they can and slog away for the occasional par. We golfers are stupid and become bored with easy courses. I blame the premium put on par, maybe if the number listed wasn't a par 4 but a birdie 3 people would adjust in an attempt to achieve that number.

[Adam_Messix]

Scott

Your post brings up a great line that Peter Allis had when describing major championships.  He said, "Major Championship golf is attack and defend and attack and defend.  Attack when you can which isn't very often and defend when you've hit good shots."   I agree with him that is what majors should be like.  Whether you like it or not, it separates the field. 

My friend Mark Russell describes PGA Tour set ups well.  "We want to set up the course to where the guys can play."  Tour events do allow for offensive golf and there tend to be a plethora of birdies barring goofy weather lIke at San  Diego. 

I think folks are over reacting to a difficult week weather wise in Augusta.  I was there on Thursday and was shocked at the number of low scores because the wind blew hard.  Keep in mind, 270 won last year. 

[Mark Pearce]

Scott,


I have seen the final of the recent T20 World Cup described as possibly the best game of T20 ever played.  It was certainly as exciting as any I can remember, with momentum swinging one way, then another and the likely winners changing identity several times, until it looked almost certain England would win, before West Indies won it in extraordinary style at the last.  Why was it so good?  Because there was a balance between attack (batsmen) and defence (bowlers).  That balance, in any sport, makes for far more compelling watching and a better test of skill, than when any sport is too far in favour of the attack.

[Kalen Braley]

I think to some degree, we already have that.

When they do tour stops in Palm Springs, Hawaii, etc....its totally gunz-a-blazing where you gotta shoot at least 65 every day to have a chance.

And these guys are so good, you don't need a bunch of half par short holes, you just need normal greens with normal fairways and these guys will eat it up.

[Scott Macpherson]

I didn't necessarily want to use The Masters as the example because it's a Major and they are special, (which is why I excluded them in my initial post) but let's look at the most exciting holes on the back nine. What were they yesterday? The par 3s and the reachable par 5s. 12 gave us Spieth's Septa and forever added to the many memories and extensive history of that hole, 13 is always exciting as players try to get to the green in two shots, the 15th burst to life with Westwood's eagle, and how exciting was the 16th? Apart from the hole's in one, we got Willett's great birdie when he was under the gun, then we all waited to see what Speith could do. That 180y hole with all the slopes was all we needed for the excitement. The point is, that all that drama came to us not because of excessive length but in spite of it. We got the excitement due to great design, interesting slopes, and the players knowing that they needed to attack.

Mark, I saw that T20 Final too, and it was awesome. Balance is important and it is hard to compare a shared ball game to one where you play your own, but the bowlers were attacking too. Indeed at different times the bowlers and batters were both attacking and defending but the success of the event is based on the shorter duration of the games and the explosive, attacking nature of the format.

Short holes give us balance. Think of the 10th at Riviera – players have to decide to attack or to take a more defensive strategy. And what was more memorable to the average player yesterday viewing yesterday and as importantly more enticing?  The three hole in ones on 16 (attacking) or Spieth's defensive demise on 12? The point is that is not about length it about attitude.

Hey guys its 2016 and things sometimes change.  We are looking to make the game more fun and enjoyable to watch.  Audiences and players are dwindling.   Nothing fun about watching 4 foot putts, chunking a ball in a lake, and 75s.  Reachable par 4s for these guys can be 350+ especially when downhill or with the wind. They will still be playing "Championship Length" (whatever that is).   Lets stimulate some excitement.     

[Tony_Muldoon]

Make them run and hit, now that would speed the game up!
 
 
It is interesting that Golf has had all sorts of inovative was of playing, scrambles, stablefords with more points for birdie's and eagles or Skins games and they've not causght on. 

[Jason Topp]

Imagine how slow a round of golf would be on a course where players can drive the par 4's and need to wait on the second shots on par 5's.

I question whether or not a tour event on a 6000 yard golf course would necessarily be more exciting.  Well designed holes create exciting golf and such a hole can be a short or long.  The 17th and 18th at the Old Course are a perfect example of two holes that can be very exciting even though one is long and the other is short.  The 17th is exciting because players struggle for par and the 18th is exciting because everyone thinks they should make birdie. 

Exciting golf consists of players struggling at the margin of their ability.   If a setup can do that for all facets of the game, it makes for an interesting tournament.

[Scott Macpherson]

Jason,

I like your idea, maybe under this NEW format guys have a shot clock too (one that the officials actually use ).

Let's not get wrapped up in the question about the length of a course. I know I raised it but a course would measure what it would measure but it would be designed for excitement. Didn't you love seeing those pros high-fiving each other when they had a hole-in-one on the 16th at Augusta. Wasn't that fun? It got the patrons cheering. Did it make you want to go and play golf? I did for me and I bet for thousands of others and that's what we need if we are going to drive people to the game of the first time, and back to the game if they haven't played for a while. Virtually no one wants to play if you're going to be constantly bashed around the head by ball busting 500 yard par 4s. That's what the 10th and 11th holes at Augusta are (which are good challenging holes for the Masters but a unsatisfying grind for regular golfers) and by the look on the faces of the pros as they walked those fairways you'd think they had drunk some cold coffee through their grandmothers old sock.

And as you raised the 17th at TOC - that was a par 5. The par was changed for the 1964 Open Championship but that doesn't make it a better or worse hole, it just changes how a players score relates to par. Big deal – par is only a hypothetical number. I might argue that it's a better hole as a short five because players are attracted to that attacking birdie.

Look, we all want the game to grow. It's tough to sell a forced march to a bunch of Millenials raised on instant gratification. We can keep some tradition and think outside the box. We want booming drives, and spinny wedges, it's great for the entertainment and kids love it. What else can we do to get the game growing?

[jeffwarne]

The ONLY thing golf could take from the NBA is the shot clock....


Do people actually watch the NBA? (aside from Curry and Golden State)

[Bill_McBride]

So here's an idea...


The NBA has primarily become an offensive game. Defence is important and we all like to see big blocks etc, but fans love the slams, dunks, 3-pointers and high powered assists. World Cricket has done the same with T20 a huge hit worldwide with viewers wanting to see big 6s every over.


What if we did that for golf? How would it look? So apart from the Majors, primarily the Tours (US and European) set up the courses shorter, and encouraged more dynamism with par 3's measuring 140-180y, short par 4's with 'speed slots', areas of the greens that funnel the ball to key pin locations. Par 5s would be reachable in 2 shots like the 13th at Augusta. High Risk High Reward golf but courses closer to 6000y than 7000y. Forget about par (and especially protecting it), the focus is excitement because, after all, golf is only entertainment.


Could this be the future for our game?


Scott

When I read your thoughts on 13 I just scratch my head at the idiocy of the Masters plan to spend $25m to add 50 yards to that wonderful hole. 

[Jason Thurman]

YOU get a birdie! YOU get a birdie!

[jeffwarne]

So here's an idea...


The NBA has primarily become an offensive game. Defence is important and we all like to see big blocks etc, but fans love the slams, dunks, 3-pointers and high powered assists. World Cricket has done the same with T20 a huge hit worldwide with viewers wanting to see big 6s every over.


What if we did that for golf? How would it look? So apart from the Majors, primarily the Tours (US and European) set up the courses shorter, and encouraged more dynamism with par 3's measuring 140-180y, short par 4's with 'speed slots', areas of the greens that funnel the ball to key pin locations. Par 5s would be reachable in 2 shots like the 13th at Augusta. High Risk High Reward golf but courses closer to 6000y than 7000y. Forget about par (and especially protecting it), the focus is excitement because, after all, golf is only entertainment.


Could this be the future for our game?


Scott

When I read your thoughts on 13 I just scratch my head at the idiocy of the Masters plan to spend $25m to add 50 yards to that wonderful hole.

Bill,
My theory is that they want the land for a lot more reasons.
It's quite a bit of land and I'd bet they add some more infrastructure and/or access back there-accessible via 13 left of fairway

[Tom_Doak]

What if we did that for golf? How would it look? So apart from the Majors, primarily the Tours (US and European) set up the courses shorter, and encouraged more dynamism with par 3's measuring 140-180y, short par 4's with 'speed slots', areas of the greens that funnel the ball to key pin locations. Par 5s would be reachable in 2 shots like the 13th at Augusta. High Risk High Reward golf but courses closer to 6000y than 7000y. Forget about par (and especially protecting it), the focus is excitement because, after all, golf is only entertainment.

It would look a lot like Ballyneal or Pacific Dunes or Barnbougle.  Or Gamble Sands, although I don't think flat greens provide much excitement for the pros.  Or the finishing holes of the Rio Olympic Course, from what I've heard.  Or Crystal Downs or Cypress Point or Lawsonia or a bunch of other cool 1920's courses.


My only question is why are you making this discussion about the pros?  If we are talking about what's good for the game, the pros aren't really helping at all.

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Tom,


We're talking about the Tour because that's what's on TV. That's what is influencing many of the decisions made further down the chain. What people see on TV moves the needle. If the Tour moved to courses like those you mention, and there's 100 more, and people could see the fun these courses give, then I think the game may refocus on those elements of the game that make it so special. These elements are not 6 hour rounds and 240y par 3s and 500y par 4s.


Bill


Re the 13th at ANGC, the first step I may recommend to them to is lower the back tee. It's a relatively inexpensive change and one that would make it harder for the pros to go over the trees on the left. Next step, how about little a bunker in the middle of the green? Because some pros who hit the fairway with their tee shot still lay up to attack the green, would that would make the approach shot more fun no matter where you are on the fairway (tell me if I'm getting carried away here....  )? OK, I'm joking. But the point is US$50m (if thats's what they are talking) just to extend this hole is what squirrels like to eat – nuts. You could use the same money to build 25 (or more) 9-hole community courses around the country (which would be especially good in the cities) for people to learn the game.

[Sean_A]

Scott


While I hear your message, I am hoping that archies and developers can somehow find a way to ignore pro golf. The game will be far better served if this can be accomplished.


Ciao

[Scott Macpherson]

Hi Sean,


You know like I do that it's impossible for the industry to ignore pro golf. Sure, most new courses and renovations are not for courses that will host tour events, but the Tour still has an impact on the industry. This thread is up to create some discussion around the idea of creating courses based around shorter, more offensively designed holes where players can get really excited. The course is made of 18  'half holes' (par 2.5, 3.5 and 4.5 holes) where attacking golf is rewarded. It would be beneficial if the Tour played on such courses so viewers can get excited and then course owners and developers might see the benefits too.

[Niall C]

Scott,


I'm not sure comparisons to basketball or cricket are totally apt but FWIW I'd suggest something along the lines that Tom was saying or at least I think he was alluding to. More half par holes with emphasis on "birdie" pars rather than "bogey" pars ie. holes that suggest they will play easier than the par. Ideally these holes should still have a kick so if you don't get a birdie you could very easily have a double bogey. The kick might be difficulty in getting up and down because of shortsiding yourself rather than being knee deep in bundi 5 feet off the green.


Speaking personally, those holes whet my appetite and I'd guess are most peoples favourites.


Niall


 

[Ben Sims]

My only question is why are you making this discussion about the pros?  If we are talking about what's good for the game, the pros aren't really helping at all.

I think it helps to be pragmatic more than idealistic about professional athletes' affect on their sport.  It's easy to sit down in front of the tube and see what the best do. The creeping target of success in any leisure activity will always be defined by those that do it best.

In the AAC a few years back, I didn't grade myself against what Jim Colton would do. I graded against a professional.

--

Speaking about a more offensive mindset to golf, I think there is one thing not mentioned yet. Football, and to a lesser extent, basketball at the highest levels have moved towards a more offensive game. But even with that evolution, defense still wins championships (see: Spurs, Seahawks, Broncos). On the PGA tour, offense may win some games. But those major championships, the dudes that make the least mistakes (rather than the most birdies) seem to rise to the top.
 

[Sean_A]

My only question is why are you making this discussion about the pros?  If we are talking about what's good for the game, the pros aren't really helping at all.

The creeping target of success in any leisure activity will always be defined by those that do it best.

This is the kind of statement which sounds accurate, but is it?  I have played pick up hockey since high school...not once in that time did I hear anybody talk about what the pros do in relation as to what we should do.  We all have a clear understanding of our substantial limitations and even create rules to accomodate them.  We all recognize this is a chance for good exercise among like-minded fellows with a small element of competition...sounds a lot like when I play golf.   


I hunt once in a while...never do I think I have to be the best even in my party.  Again, we are aware of our limitations and mindful of the goals of being there and then. 


Sure, pros set the bar for the competitive aspect of sport, but I hope people realize there is a lot more on offer in sport especially as we grow older. 


Back to the question, if we are designing courses in the main for pros, the game is up.  However, it sounds to me like Scott is suggesting that pros play more at my level on courses I can find entertaining.  Of course, that will never happen.  The game is bifurcated...all that remains now is for people to admit it and figure out how best to move on from there.


Ciao

[Ben Sims]

Sean,

No need to go and highlight societal differences between the old world and the American machine. 

Anecdotally, I compare myself to pros in in my leisure pursuits. I have no delusions of being Sean Brock, Bryson DeChambeau, or Peter Sagan. But if I'm lucky and really focus, maybe I can reach up and touch their greatness once in a blue moon. I think that mindset is only natural. Hence my opinion that we shouldn't so idealistically dismiss how the pros play the game.

[Tom_Doak]

I think it helps to be pragmatic more than idealistic about professional athletes' affect on their sport.  It's easy to sit down in front of the tube and see what the best do.

Ben:


I don't think I'm being terribly idealistic; I think everyone else is, to believe that their game in any way relates to those of Jordan Spieth or Rory McIlroy.  I could relate to the games of players thirty years ago, when I had several chances to walk inside the ropes with them ... I could watch Seve and Crenshaw and think I could hit the same shots.  Today, not a chance.  They play a game with which I am not familiar.  Which is funny, because I think I'm building exactly the kind of courses Scott was trying to describe, and I can tell you that nobody running the Tours is interested in seeing one of my courses host an event at all.


Scott's description of building more holes like 13 at Augusta is a bit nonsensical ... can you think of one other 500-yard par-5 in the world that's anything but a driver/8-iron for the big boys?  But, like many other golf course architects I know, he is captured by the golf business which is centered around the Tour.  Even the R & A and the USGA are now centered around the Tour players, which they didn't used to be.


It helps my design work immensely that I rarely watch golf on TV anymore.  I watch real people play golf, and I go out and play myself.

[Ben Sims]

I think it helps to be pragmatic more than idealistic about professional athletes' affect on their sport.  It's easy to sit down in front of the tube and see what the best do.

Ben:


They play a game with which I am not familiar.  Which is funny, because I think I'm building exactly the kind of courses Scott was trying to describe, and I can tell you that nobody running the Tours is interested in seeing one of my courses host an event at all.
....

Even the R & A and the USGA are now centered around the Tour players, which they didn't used to be.

It helps my design work immensely that I rarely watch golf on TV anymore.  I watch real people play golf, and I go out and play myself.

Tom,

This makes sense, you're absolutely in a different position than those of us that look at golf as a leisure pursuit. I played perhaps the best round of my life last August at Ballyneal. Save for a miracle hybrid into a gale on 6 for a tap-in, there wasn't a single shot I hit that day that resembled what the pros do with regularity. If it wasn't for your design tenets precisely NOT targeting what the insanely talented players can do, there's no way I shoot a career round in windy conditions.

I guess my point was related to ideal vs. actual. I agree that we shouldn't be looking to the professional game as an example of how courses should be designed, or rules managed, or pace of play addressed. But unfortunately, the actuality of the situation is that the professional game--in all pursuits--will always impact how the mortals play their version of those games.

[Scott Macpherson]

Tom, the 13th at ANGC is an iconic hole. Why change it? It's terrific and fun. The changes they are proposing seem to be just to make it harder to make a 4 on the hole  i.e. to protect par. That's not a new concept, but if the cost to do so $50m, is that a price to high to pay??


TV broadcasts are golf's best avenue to reach the largest potential number of golfers regularly and in a very powerful and graphic way. As amateur golf gets very little attention relative to pro golf, its the courses the pro events are played on that we see and therefore what shape the perimeters of many golfers about what a 'great' golf course is. Im not sure that is in debate here.


I designed a premium level members golf course in Newcastle, UK (Colt Course at Close House) that is currently being considered as a host venue for the 2017 British Masters. It was not conceived as a Tour venue, but the owner is now keen to see if it can host the event and so the European Tour have been challenged to try and fit the required infrastructure in. The course has about 300 foot of elevation change from its highest to lowest point (the same as Pasatiempo). Every hole goes in a different direction and slope of the previous, and with each fairway changing in width. There are a lot of elements to the design and it's been a great success with the members, with the various events held, and it is fully embraced by its ambassador Lee Westwood. At just under 7000 yards it's not a long course, but very much a shot makers course, and, based on this thread, I think a course that rewards golf played with a positive and attacking spirit. With that background, I am finding it really interesting hearing what the European Tour think of the course and what they think may need to happen to make it ok for the pros. No decisions have been made, but I wonder if what they propose may remove some of the features of the course that define its identity. This experience is making me think more about the other courses we see on the TV, and why some of our most interesting/quirky/expressive courses don't become Tour venues. It may be to their benefit that they don't. 

[Niall C]

Scott


I think that many would agree that it is to the benefit of a lot of classic courses that they haven't been tweaked for the pro's but I wonder how many of those very same courses were designed with Harry Vardon/Bobby Jones in mind. I suspect most if not all.


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()