Firestone

[Sean_A]

Brian - I defend Firestone and penal architecture for what it is.  However, Firestone isn't strategic.  The land is better than shown on TV and the green complexes are very good, but it is penal golf, not strategic.

Fair point, but it isn't obvious to me that Firestone is penal golf. I would think water hazards and forced carries when I think of penal golf. But that's just me.

Thinking in terms of penal architecture offering less choices....forced drives between features is penal architecture as well.  Many think of this in terms of pinching bunkers, but narrow fairway corridors due to trees or harsh rough lining fairways is penal architecture.  Trees and rough narrowing play options is THE MO for midwestern courses and most of the time it was never the original intention.  I would argue that Supers and lack of awareness have had a huge impact on the history of architecture.  It is to the point now where courses look odd if there aren't trees and rough lining fairways. 

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

I vote for Firestone being pretty much one dimensional golf, particularly in the short game off the greens.
I suggest that:
 - at least 90% of all trees be removed, and one mowing height be executed from property line to property line.
 - green size be reduced by at least 1/3 w/ deeper green side bunkers

Is Firestone a "Classic" or an "Irrelevant Relic"?

[Joe_Tucholski]

I played Firestone South last year.  I'd previously made trips and played the North and West a couple of times.  The front 9 on the West course is my favorite 9.  Unfortunately the back 9 isn't as high quality.  When talking about penal design.  The first hole at the north is my definition of a penal hole.  OB right, water left (the green felt tucked behind the water).  I didn't like the North as a course, but it does have good holes that I remember (the south really doesn't have holes that I totally remember - even after watching them on TV). 


I also agree with the perspective that courses should be measured among styles.  I can't really compare Firestone - South to a course like the old course.  The styles are very different and the purpose/objective of the courses are very different.  Both are generating some pretty good revenue though.


I'm currently a member at an Ohio course that was built as a tough test so I think comparing the two courses is what left me disappointed (I like my home course more).  I also have a tough time separating what I pay for golf with how I view the golf course (I guess this is the reason to comp raters).  Do I think the course is the worst course on tour.  Definitely not.  I consider it a pretty darn good course.  Will I pay $300+ to play it again.  No, but there aren't any courses I'm willing to pay $300 to play repeatedly.


I also am a believer that trends in golf course architecture will return and the courses of the 50's/60's/70's will become popular again.  I don't think this is a bad thing.  I do consider it a bad thing when courses chase the current trends (hypocritically I have a house in Pinehurst and plan to die a member there.  Pinehurst has repeatedly chased fads).