Tour Pros and Architecture

[SL_Solow]

I have been reading comments by touring pros relating to course architecture for more than 40 years.  I readily concede that opinions vary but I have concluded that for many pros there are some shared propositions   which limit their appreciation for course design.  Much of this way of thinking started with Hogan and his disciples like Gardnar Dickinson.  I believe it stems from what they do for a living and how it interacts with architecture.  These talented athletes spend the better part of their lives seeking to perfect their swings so that under pressure they can hit shots an exact distance on a predictable trajectory.  The basic premise underlying this quest is that they will be rewarded if they can produce the manufactured swing at the correct moment.  Anything that reduces their ability to calculate the shot that is needed and/or does not reward that effort is viewed as "wrong" or "unfair".  They are not amused by a retort that golf, like life, is not fair because for them, this is not a game, it is how they earn their living.  Hence their praise for a course where "everything is laid out in front of you".  Examine Hogan's few forays into architecture.  There is less appreciation for strategy except where the question is a relatively straightforward question of risk and reward.  One rarely finds a tour pro considering routing because that does not factor into his effort to try and make a score.  Additionally, most pros do not want to be embarrassed; who does?   Big scores are embarrassing so tricky holes which can yield big numbers are frowned upon.  There are few lovers of quirk among the pros.


Of course, all of this is a matter of taste.  But these views, while they may make for fair, often difficult, tests for tournaments, to my way of thinking  make for less interesting playing fields.

[Ira Fishman]

I draw the opposite conclusion about Hogan. He clearly had an astute appreciation for architecture given his fondness for Seminole, Colonial, Carnoustie, and Cypress Point and his criticism of Oakland Hills. Now, maybe his comments about Major courses were self-serving, but Seminole, CPC, and even Colonial do not fit that explanation. And if memory serves, he praised courses at which he did not play particularly well. His limited forays into design make the point that appreciation for good design and executing it are different.


Ira

[SL_Solow]

Go see the Trophy Club which he designed with, I believe, Joe Finger and then read what he said about architecture.  I believe that he could win anywhere but he expressed a preference for courses that favored difficult driving .  Surprised?

[Steve Lang]

   Self serving pros indeed, and even if they did understand gca features or greatly admire the influences or trickery... would they really need to expose that to their competition when a single shot matters to their weekly take home pay?? 


I assume their yardage books could expose their gca evolution...

[Philippe Binette]

there are some tour pros who loves architecture...


one thing for sure: a good understanding of the tactical part of the game is essential to survive on the PGA Tour...


players do analyse the courses and have to find A plan for the course... the plan that works for their game... two aspects of this:

- they have to find ONE plan : [size=78%][/size]the plan that works for their game... they don't care about how they would play the course if they hit the ball 30 yards longer or shorter..

- their plan is not necessarily the architect's plan... think Zach Johnson winning at Augusta.. the par 5's are great holes where going for the green in two is risk/reward... but the day you decide to lay up on each of them.. the hole becomes super easy hybrid,  6-iron - wedge.

[Jeff_Brauer]

RE Hogan and Trophy Club.  He did quit part way through when either Joe Lee or the Owner wouldn't give him what he wanted.  Since I only met the man once for a ten second greeting, I have no idea.  In general though, I have found arrogant people not to have design personalities, especially those who seem to plow through straight line A to B, while designers by necessity consider multiple options and wander to C through Z before arriving at their destination.


I find it interesting that some here differentiate the Pros POV with that of "classic architecture" obviously assuming the classic wins.  That is as close minded a view as the pros have, no?  Not surprising on a site primarily devoted to preserving old architecture and its precepts.


In theory, courses in all eras were designed primarily for the best players of the day.  TBH, it has never been proven that great players of the day actually played as those architects intended, has it?  Even if they did (which I doubt, having often asked whether anyone would challenge a hazard while playing the theoretically least accurate club (driver) to have a bit less challenge with a more accurate club (i.e., 5 iron?)


Even if they did, clubs have changed, balls have changed, players have gotten stronger, fields have gotten bigger and stronger.  It would make sense that strategy for top players may have evolved to fit the new circumstances.  That has been shown on recent threads by Eric B and others with new strategy books.  Basically, it seems everyone plays defense for the most part, everyone plays their best shot pattern regardless of architecture, etc.


Lastly, my take on Mac and a few others is that they did try to set up shots rather than punish with bunkers, and in essence, with the dozens of tour pros I have spoken with over the years, that is still what they want architects to do.  Yes, aligning all the signals to remove confusion as to the best shot or strategy is part of their ideal, but I'm not sure that is all bad.  Nor do I think lower level ams are demanding a lot of confusion to confront them, either.


I guess I am saying that wherever design is aimed at top players (which most, but not all are) I see no reason to think that getting their input is somehow counter to good architecture.  Or, the corollary designing to frustrate them on purpose (which Pete Dye has said a few times).  Why for one week a decade you might host a tour event? 

[John Kavanaugh]

Why for one week a decade you might host a tour event?
 

I find that short sighted. The fact that I hit at least one tour quality shot per round is enough for me. For me to hit that shot I need to be presented with the challenge on most if not all the holes. If I am only challenged once or twice a round I may go months without hitting a great shot. Who would possibly want that?

[Kalen Braley]

As Jim and Shelley have pointed out its their job and livelihood, and that's why I don't hold their preferences for more predictable and "fair" features against them, its very logical in that context.

And if I was in thier shoes, I would likely think exactly same...

[Jason Thurman]

We who post on this site seem to predominantly believe that "knowing architecture" is about correctly aligning with GCA groupthink when it comes to ranking courses against each other, or expressing preferences about one vs another.


Tour pros make a living based on how well they understand the challenges a course presents and their ability to align their skillset to those challenges.


Who "knows architecture" best?

[Kalen Braley]

Jason,

I would disagree with your last post.   Many can understand what shot is required, but few can execute it.

The ability to hit excellent golf shots one after another is the reason they are pros, not because they can assess a hole from the tee.

[John Kavanaugh]

Kalen,


Hitting the ball is the easy part. Especially from a level lie to an open green. The best players in the world prefer courses that separate them from the journeymen on tour or some random college kid. They love quirk far more than a 14 handicap. Pros enjoy architecture that provides an opportunity to win, hacks love architecture that provides excuses for poor shots. Often it is the same thing.


Now a 40 year old web.com journeyman loves everything in front of him like he loves his third wife. He is just trying to stay warm at night.

[Kalen Braley]

John,


That's an interesting hypothesis.  While I would agree that hitting the ball is the easy part, to get the desired expected result over and over again is the very difficult part.  And the ability to recover after the occasional miss is probably what really separates the pros from the joes, whether from thick cabbage in the rough or around the green.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jason, +1



JK, in reality, what works for tour pros works for ams, specifically, eliminate forced or even optional carries because they rarely hit that short, and 2, place hazards to the sides, since a pros miss pattern is actually wider than his depth miss pattern.  For tee shots, they are much more accurate, but for some reason, groupthink here thinks they ought to have miles of width, which is certainly not the prevailing attitude elsewhere in the golf world.


Not sure I agree hitting the ball is easy.  What do you make of Hogan saying he only hit 2-3 good shots per round?  Yes, the highest standards of any player in his era, but on the other hand, so many more pros have gotten good now, he may be average historically.  Many would say its managing your misses.

Kalen,  If you ever play with a pro, yes, it is their short game that truly sets them apart from a single digit handicapper.  Its eve more amazing to watch from inside the ropes.  How would that affect design?  I think Pete Dye did some of the hardest recovery shots, probably due to that factor.  In truth, IMO, a variety of recovery shot types would test pros and ID the most complete player in that regard, even if it didn't happen to raise scores much.  Of course, one stroke is all that is needed to separate any competition.

[Jason Thurman]

Jason,

I would disagree with your last post.   Many can understand what shot is required, but few can execute it.

The ability to hit excellent golf shots one after another is the reason they are pros, not because they can assess a hole from the tee.

That's because you think identifying the "shot required" reflects an understanding of architecture. And it probably does on a rudimentary level. But the player who can see the playing field in front of them and choose the play that gives him the best chance of success in a competition, taking into account his own game and its tendencies and how they align with what's on the ground, has a much deeper understanding of architecture than the guy who can draw 2 lines on an aerial of 16 at Cypress and thus believes he's enlightened.


The former is also almost certainly a better golfer, incidentally.

[Sven Nilsen]

Who "knows architecture" best?

People who have the ability to understand how all levels of players will get around a course.


In other words, caddies.


I'll just go ahead and slink out of the room now.

[JESII]

So there's four distinct categories in this conversation I think;


Playing execution (Skill)
Strategic evaluation (Course Management)
Architectural Assessment (GCA.com credibility)
Golf Course Architecture (Can you build it?)


The initial question was wondering if; since Tour players show up to Riviera, they must appreciate good architecture. Since they must appreciate good architecture, why do they so rarely create good architecture?


This from Tom Doak early on hits the nail on the head, doesn't it?


"In all likelihood, quite a few Tour pros would be good designers, IF they devoted enough time to it.  Michael Clayton is a great example you are all familiar with."

[archie_struthers]

 




Most big  name tour pros make so much money these days that upon retirement they don't have too many financial worries. The apprenticeship to really learn the architecture business isn't quick , so they latch on to a good or young architect to consult with, in other words let him do the work and tweak it a little.


Nicklaus , Palmer et al were so successful that they built firms to capitalize on their fame. Arnold didn't make near as much playing as he would have today. Crenshaw is an exception to the rule , he's a throwback to the old days in many ways. Love the guy!


Lots of great talents out there not tons of work makes for a tough entry!

[John Kavanaugh]

Why can Crenshaw build to his strengths and Hogan can't?

[JESII]

Because we couldn't finish a round of golf if it were built for Hogan's strengths...

[John Kavanaugh]

And we care why? It's not that hard to hit the ball well if you are willing to do the work and leave your ego in the lot.

[JESII]

IF the queen had balls...

[Mike Bodo]

We have a number of threads with the theme that tour pros do not have a high level of interest in architecture and that those who become architects/designers generally do not produce high level courses.  Yet Riviera draws one of the best non-major fields of the year and the Pros tend to rave about the quality of the course.  How do we reconcile these two statements?  It certainly can be the case that pros-turned architects just are not very good at it, but it does seem they know good architecture when they see it.


Ira

I think the problem isn't so much that the average tour player doesn't care or isn't interested in course architecture, but think of the number of cookie-cutter, non-descript courses they play throughout the year? It's a staggering amount, which is why playing a tournament on a classic-era course such as Riviera, Pebble Beach, Augusta National, Colonial, Medinah, East Lake etc. is a refreshing break from the mundane TPC courses they typically compete on each week. Each year it seems that the number of classic-era courses that host PGA tournaments dwindles, with the primary culprits being the lack of space and course length. That said, I am excited to see the Rocket Mortgage Classic being played at Detroit Golf Club (North), which is a great classic-era Ross track and one hopefully the pros will enjoy and embrace.

[archie_struthers]

 




Jimmy I think you guys are really funny!


Hogan upon his first meeting wih Johnny Miller.....ahem   .."Can't you see I'm eating my lunch " ......remember Hogan and a  phone call from a young Gary Player ..."What clubs do you play?"    Click     lol

[Kalen Braley]

Jason,

I would disagree with your last post.   Many can understand what shot is required, but few can execute it.

The ability to hit excellent golf shots one after another is the reason they are pros, not because they can assess a hole from the tee.

That's because you think identifying the "shot required" reflects an understanding of architecture. And it probably does on a rudimentary level. But the player who can see the playing field in front of them and choose the play that gives him the best chance of success in a competition, taking into account his own game and its tendencies and how they align with what's on the ground, has a much deeper understanding of architecture than the guy who can draw 2 lines on an aerial of 16 at Cypress and thus believes he's enlightened.


The former is also almost certainly a better golfer, incidentally.

Jason,
 
I wont argue this isn't how many of the best differentiate themselves from other Pros or good players otherwise...

But you're original question posed, "Who 'knows architecture' best" and i'll stick with it ain't the vast majority of TPs, even if they can craft a good game plan and have the ability to execute it for a good number.

[Philippe Binette]

There is a ton of players who can hit the ball like or better than tour pros..


But understanding your game, and playing is what saves the 1-2 stroke a round that makes the difference between being an established tour player and a struggling mini tour guy