Did Trent Jones know something Mr. Colt didn't?

[Peter Pallotta]

Does RTJ II know something that Gil Hanse doesn't?

When designing to test the 1%, is a different mind and skill set required?

Peter 

[Tom_Doak]

Peter:


Mr. Nicklaus and Mr. Player agree that you have to have been a great player to design for great players.  Which is rubbish, of course, but they're just trying to keep some work for themselves.


It hasn't really worked out that way; the second half of your question makes no sense, since Gil is now the new Open Doctor.  Which probably proves that the answer to your question has more to do with politics, than with design.

[jeffwarne]

We all know inserting water hazards,pushing a tee box back, pinching a fairway with bunkers on both sides, and growing knee high rough,.....
make courses harder.(and evidently make one an "Open Doctor)


The questions are :
                              1. does that make for better golf(for anyone)?
                              2. does that identify the best of the 1%?
                              3.Prove you know something no one else knows?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - yes, I double-crossed myself using Gil's name. I didn't want to use the name of any architect who posts here, and just threw in Gil's name (instead of yours or Jeff B's or Ian's etc) unthinkingly. Yes, I'd imagine that most of the talk about great player-architects knowing how to design for great players is self promotion, but I am wondering if ALL of it is. You and the other architects who post here spend a great deal of time and talent on, for example, creating preferred angles for approaches,  and contoured greens with dangerous places to miss, and holes and routings that work well from 2 or 3 different distances/sets of tees; but what if none of that meant anything? If a golf course was designed/re-designed almost exclusively for the 1%, how does that time and talent get "re-focused" when dealing with not a range of average golfers but with a single and very definite sub-set of golfers who can, to a person, approach a green, any green, from just about ANY angle with almost no difference/disadvantage felt, and who can spend a week getting to know any sets of greens no matter how smartly done and then spend the next four days being incredibly precise at hitting targets on those greens, and for whom currently NO hole not matter how long seems to be TOO long? 

Jeff - as in my response to Tom, I am wondering whether there is in fact MORE to designing for the 1% than simply adding hazards and length and rough. Maybe there isn't, and maybe even if there IS a Tom D or a Jeff B know it as well as an RTJ II or a JN. I'm just wondering

[jeffwarne]

Tom - yes, I double-crossed myself using Gil's name. I didn't want to use the name of any architect who posts here, and just threw in Gil's name (instead of yours or Jeff B's or Ian's etc) unthinkingly. Yes, I'd imagine that most of the talk about great players-architects knowing how to design for great players is self promotion, but I am wondering is ALL of it is. You and the other architects who post here spend time and talent on, for example, creating preferred angles for approaches,  and contoured greens with dangerous places to miss, and holes and routings that work well from 2 or 3 different distances/sets of tees; but what if none of that meant anything? If a golf course was designed/re-designed almost exclusively for the 1%, how does that time and talent get "re-focused" when dealing with not a range of average golfers but the a group who can, to a person, approach a green, any green, from just about ANY angle with almost no difference/disadvantage felt, and who can spend a week getting to know any sets of greens no matter how smartly done and then spend the next four days being incredibly precise at hitting targets on those greens? 

Jeff - as in my response to Tom, I am wondering whether there is in fact MORE to designing for the 1% than adding hazards and length and rough. Maybe there isn't, and maybe even if there IS a Tom or a Jeff B know it as well as an RTJ II or a JN. I'm just wondering

Peter,
I think I disagree with the premise.
Despite the never ending grass speed and club/ball tech race, angles and strategy and design techniques described above DO work, but unfortunately are generally abandoned or changed when the elite complain because they don't understand the question.


Anybody can add a flanking bunker to catch a shot a player never considered.....

[JESII]

Isn't Pete Dye the answer?

Get them thinking and you've won?

[Tom_Doak]

Isn't Pete Dye the answer?

I had the same thought.  Certainly, I learned a lot about how the pros think from Mr. Dye, and he stressed to me the concept of trying to make them uncomfortable mentally, because they were so good physically you couldn't really challenge them that way without making it impossible for everyone else.  [And even if you did challenge them physically, they would just play safely anyway.]


The funny thing is that Mr. Jones and sons never really seemed to address that in any of their work, and most other architects designing for Tour players [apart from Mr. Dye] seem to have focused on the physical, and not the psychological.

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Didn't you watch the Masters? I think the boys were plenty challenged...maybe overly so.  Yet, there wasn't any rough to speak of.  Augusta has plenty of hazards, but they are mainly the penal sort which require carry (rather than flanking hazards)...which one would think plays into the flat bellies hands...and many days they do..in which case its a birdie race and players will feel they need to take risks even if they may be uncomfortable...I think this is the psychological aspect of design mentioned above.  Bottom line Augusta is the antithesis of traditional US Open courses which hammer players with rough, yet it may be the perfect blend of execution and psychological terror for flat bellies.  But I maintain that the biggest terror of all for these guys are the greens.  Okay, its a Dr Mac concept ramped up x10, but that seems to be what is necessary to challenge these guys if rough is not a main feature.   


Ciao   

[Mark Pearce]

Does Augusta get a free pass from the players because they are familiar with it, in a way that a new course on the rota, like, say, Chambers Bay, doesn't?  If Augusta was a new course, that they had not seen before, wouldn't the players whinge about the punishment of "good" shots and the unfairness of the greens and undulations in the same way that they do when faced with firm, fast and undulating surfaces on courses they have not seen before?  Isn't the difference that they know, because Augusta is so familiar, the way you have to play to deal with those features, but aren't ready and willing to learn that about a new and less storied course?

[David Davis]

I'd think a course like PGA Sawgrass would be basically the ultimate 1% course. Strike fear and uncertainty in the hearts of the best players, make them sweat and talk about it, make them fear it and it ultimately ends up being great TV, getting wonderful and constant marketing, filling the niche of "most difficult" and then allow all the hackers to go massacre themselves for a high green fee price, all that in an easily accessible location where you can play year round.


I'd call that a formula for success.


My question would be to architects along these lines. What if you were asked to do just that. Make the most difficult and terrifying course you could possible dream up for that 1%. Would you do it (perhaps rhetorical) and how would that look for you? Talking mad science stuff here.


Peter not trying to thread jack so if this is not in line with your point, then I can start another thread.

[Mike_Young]

Pietro

Didn't you watch the Masters? I think the boys were plenty challenged...maybe overly so.  Yet, there wasn't any rough to speak of.  Augusta has plenty of hazards, but they are mainly the penal sort which require carry (rather than flanking hazards)...which one would think plays into the flat bellies hands...and many days they do..in which case its a birdie race and players will feel they need to take risks even if they may be uncomfortable...I think this is the psychological aspect of design mentioned above.  Bottom line Augusta is the antithesis of traditional US Open courses which hammer players with rough, yet it may be the perfect blend of execution and psychological terror for flat bellies.  But I maintain that the biggest terror of all for these guys are the greens.  Okay, its a Dr Mac concept ramped up x10, but that seems to be what is necessary to challenge these guys if rough is not a main feature.   


Ciao   

Sean,
IMHO one of the main reasons the pros consider certain holes difficult at ANGC is heritage.  JS probably would not have dunked those shots on 12 if he wasn't thinking of all that had gone on there before.  Otherwise the course is not that hard.

[jeffwarne]

Does Augusta get a free pass from the players because they are familiar with it, in a way that a new course on the rota, like, say, Chambers Bay, doesn't?  If Augusta was a new course, that they had not seen before, wouldn't the players whinge about the punishment of "good" shots and the unfairness of the greens and undulations in the same way that they do when faced with firm, fast and undulating surfaces on courses they have not seen before?  Isn't the difference that they know, because Augusta is so familiar, the way you have to play to deal with those features, but aren't ready and willing to learn that about a new and less storied course?

yes, well that and their greens roll a bit better...

[George Pazin]

I'd think a course like PGA Sawgrass would be basically the ultimate 1% course. Strike fear and uncertainty in the hearts of the best players, make them sweat and talk about it, make them fear it and it ultimately ends up being great TV, getting wonderful and constant marketing, filling the niche of "most difficult" and then allow all the hackers to go massacre themselves for a high green fee price, all that in an easily accessible location where you can play year round.


I'd call that a formula for success.

Is it really the design that creates the fear, or simply the abundance of water?

[jeffwarne]

I'd think a course like PGA Sawgrass would be basically the ultimate 1% course. Strike fear and uncertainty in the hearts of the best players, make them sweat and talk about it, make them fear it and it ultimately ends up being great TV, getting wonderful and constant marketing, filling the niche of "most difficult" and then allow all the hackers to go massacre themselves for a high green fee price, all that in an easily accessible location where you can play year round.


I'd call that a formula for success.

Is it really the design that creates the fear, or simply the abundance of water?

bingo...


[JESII]

George and Jeff...What?


Isn't it the design that put the water right next to the green?

[Matthew Rose]

And maintenance. Rae's creek was just an ordinary creek with brown water and weeds and long grass along the edge.... certainly no super tight shaven banks waiting to punish even the slightest of pushes.


I'm guessing that it was a pretty different hole in 1950 just based on maintenance alone.

[jeffwarne]

George and Jeff...What?


Isn't it the design that put the water right next to the green?

actually yes
what I meant was water strewn everywhere isn't exactly genius IMHO-though Pete Dye deserves a ton of credit for making pros think and for inspirng/training the current generation of architects.
I just don't care for the course....there's a lot more water that the pros never see there that tortures the average player.
But to be fair, it was a swamp

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, gents.

Maybe the better question would've been: "Does neither RTJ II nor anyone else know, in regards to designing for today's top golfers, what all previous architects didn't HAVE to know?"

Of course, that question presupposes that the basic premise is correct; but maybe, as Jeff suggests, it isn't.

To be honest, I think there is indeed SOMETHING here, something of value/interest in what I'm trying to explore; but I can't put my finger on it.

Peter

 

[Garland Bayley]

We all know inserting water hazards,pushing a tee box back, pinching a fairway with bunkers on both sides, and growing knee high rough,.....
make courses harder.(and evidently make one an "Open Doctor)


The questions are :
                              1. does that make for better golf(for anyone)?
                              2. does that identify the best of the 1%?
                              3.Prove you know something no one else knows?

1. NO
2. NO
and
3. NO

[Mike_Young]

Thanks, gents.

Maybe the better question would've been: "Does neither RTJ II nor anyone else know, in regards to designing for today's top golfers, what all previous architects didn't HAVE to know?"

Of course, that question presupposes that the basic premise is correct; but maybe, as Jeff suggests, it isn't.

To be honest, I think there is indeed SOMETHING here, something of value/interest in what I'm trying to explore; but I can't put my finger on it.

Peter

Peter,
Do you think maybe RTJ was one of the first that felt he needed to "fix" the score.  Where other sports such as football, soccer or baseball can have high scores or low scores to win, it seems there was a fixation with making sure no one won with an extremely low score and RTJ just came along and made things longer etc.  Everything done in the name of making course more difficult is really just trying to increase the score.  So many consider it a faulty course when a good player post a low number.  All of this is about "score fixing"

[Bill_McBride]

Thanks, gents.

Maybe the better question would've been: "Does neither RTJ II nor anyone else know, in regards to designing for today's top golfers, what all previous architects didn't HAVE to know?"

Of course, that question presupposes that the basic premise is correct; but maybe, as Jeff suggests, it isn't.

To be honest, I think there is indeed SOMETHING here, something of value/interest in what I'm trying to explore; but I can't put my finger on it.

Peter

Peter,
Do you think maybe RTJ was one of the first that felt he needed to "fix" the score.  Where other sports such as football, soccer or baseball can have high scores or low scores to win, it seems there was a fixation with making sure no one won with an extremely low score and RTJ just came along and made things longer etc.  Everything done in the name of making course more difficult is really just trying to increase the score.  So many consider it a faulty course when a good player post a low number.  All of this is about "score fixing"

Somebody, maybe Hogan, made the remark after RTJ's first Open Doctor preparation of Oakland Hills, that they "had to walk single file down the fairways."    Does anybody think that really helped the USGA identify the best player?   All it really did was identify the straightest driver that week.  As a result we've seen Open winners like Scott Simpson and Lee Janzen, but never a Seve.   

[Sean_A]

Thanks, gents.

Maybe the better question would've been: "Does neither RTJ II nor anyone else know, in regards to designing for today's top golfers, what all previous architects didn't HAVE to know?"

Of course, that question presupposes that the basic premise is correct; but maybe, as Jeff suggests, it isn't.

To be honest, I think there is indeed SOMETHING here, something of value/interest in what I'm trying to explore; but I can't put my finger on it.

Peter

Peter,
Do you think maybe RTJ was one of the first that felt he needed to "fix" the score.  Where other sports such as football, soccer or baseball can have high scores or low scores to win, it seems there was a fixation with making sure no one won with an extremely low score and RTJ just came along and made things longer etc.  Everything done in the name of making course more difficult is really just trying to increase the score.  So many consider it a faulty course when a good player post a low number.  All of this is about "score fixing"

The powers that be at the R&A got there long before RTJ at Oakland Hills.  The multitude of bunkers placed up the right side of the course circa 1900ish was a reaction to Open scores. 

I don't think any course I know of is too hard for the pros...they can break par anywhere.  The difficulty comes in trying to win the Masters (and to some degree that is the same every week).  This ambition puts guys out of their comfort zone.  Augusta is brilliant for exposing flaws in thinking or execution, but it is equally brilliant in offering opportunities to recover a hole or a score. 

Speith dumped two in the water at 12 because he knew his game was faultering and he finally cracked.

George...the water is part and parcel of the design...how do you suggest the two are separated?  Praising water is quite unusual for me unless its a links (and this is very rare...Co Sligo gets a bump in rating for me because of water use) or how the design mitigates a ton of a water on the property (Old Town does a brilliant job of this).   

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
George...the water is part and parcel of the design...how do you suggest the two are separated?  ...

Adding artificial water hazards to a site is part and parcel of bad design.
Had Pete moved enough dirt to make a solid body of land on which to route the golf course, and the water stored on the periphery of the property, then there would be little fear for the pros. The course would be more playable for the vast majority of players, but would not engender fear for the pros.

[Tom_Doak]

Everything done in the name of making course more difficult is really just trying to increase the score.  So many consider it a faulty course when a good player post a low number.  All of this is about "score fixing"

I agree this is the primary reason for all the work.  It's not just the governing bodies wanting to keep their precious record books meaningful [and, more importantly, cover up their failure to regulate the equipment] ... it's also the memberships of all the clubs, that go along because they don't want to see their course made to look easy.  Look at some of the other fine Golden Age courses that hosted a regular Tour event, without adding 400 yards, only to see some unknown guy shoot 62 ... they wished they'd never invited the Tour by the time it was over.


I will never forget going to the first event on the TPC at Sawgrass in 1982.  Many of the players were totally freaked out by the course and how severe it was, and they didn't understand why Mr. Dye would do that to them.  Most of the players said nobody would break par, and I figured they were right, because they were so psyched out.  I was pretty surprised when Mr. Dye predicted the winning score at 8-under to someone in the press ... when I asked him about it, he noted that there were three reachable par-5 holes, and somebody or other would make two birdies a round on those and shoot even par the rest of the way.  Come Sunday, only four or five guys managed to break par, but Jerry Pate birdied those last three holes to finish at 8 under!


The USGA's conversion of par-5's to par-4's for the U.S. Open [which started with Trent Jones' work at Oakland Hills] changes people's perceptions and covers up a lot of the reality, simply by changing par from 72 to 70.

[Sean_A]

...
George...the water is part and parcel of the design...how do you suggest the two are separated?  ...

Adding artificial water hazards to a site is part and parcel of bad design.
Had Pete moved enough dirt to make a solid body of land on which to route the golf course, and the water stored on the periphery of the property, then there would be little fear for the pros. The course would be more playable for the vast majority of players, but would not engender fear for the pros.

Garland


Maybe yes, maybe no.  I don't have anywhere near enough knowledge of civil engineering to know if what you suggest was economically, ecologically or logistically possible.  While the course may not be to one's liking, the design may actually be brilliant.


Tom & Mike


Lowering the par standard for "expert" play is the best thing that can happen in "architecture".   

Ciao