Bifurcation in Golf Course Architecture to some degree

[AChao]

I recently had the chance to talk GCA with three very interesting people ... 1)  a top 10 professional in the world, 2) a solid professional who plays on Web and satellite tours, and 3) a rising junior who is in the top 10 juniors.  I've come to the conclusion that their view of golf is so vastly different from mine, it's unbelievable.  (I'm a near 50, near scratch, and can drive around 275 yards.)  I play golf with it's all its difficulties -- they are playing video game golf where everything goes more or less where they plan. 

More and more, I think a majority of golf courses need to be built for and appreciated by 0 to 10 handicaps (and accommodated for those higher handicaps), and a small subset can be built for professionals -- they need their meaningful courses also.  I suppose this is the root of one of the challenges -- courses that can sort of test professionals, yet be fun and meaningful for most golfers.

As many of you have seen so many courses and have had so many experiences, what does everyone think?  (E.g. Cypress Point or NGLA on the one hand, and Oakland Hills, Torrey Pines South from 7,700 yards on the ohter)   

[Niall C]

You only need to have different courses for different levels of players if you adhere to the notion that these top guys shouldn't be allowed to shoot the lights out. I'm not particularly an admirer of Castle Stuart but I tip my hat to its creator, Mark Parsinen, who said something along the lines of let them have a birdie fest. After all, these guys are very, very, very good.

Niall

[Tom_Doak]

AChao:
Well, what did your illustrious companions think in regards to your question?  Were there certain famous courses that they found compelling, and others they did not?  Why have us try to guess which are which?


My consultant in Houston says The Old Course is his favorite course in the world, by far, because it’s the only one where he keeps having to adjust his tactics based on position.  And he’s not just saying that to sound smart, Brooks is one of the few top Americans who goes over for the Dunhill every year.

[Peter Pallotta]

I once started an ill-conceived thread asking how gca would change if most of us could hit the ball pretty much where we aimed  it pretty much 100% of the time. I wasn't thinking of tour pros (or of the average tour venue) but I suppose I should've been -- because hardly anyone was willing even to speculate on how design could accommodate meaningful play if the average golfer (of average length) suddenly became directionally proficient. More surprisingly, no one even gave the one answer (as Tom just did) that answers every question ever asked here on gca.com, ie the Old Course.

[James Brown]

You don’t need two classes of courses with different styles of architecture you just have to accept the scoring realities.  We can use pin locations, rough height and fairway width to dial up the difficulty for pros whenever we want, we just have to accept that the more interesting aspects of architecture are going to be experienced most keenly by golfers with a certain range of skills. 

[AChao]

Hi Tom … thanks for chiming-in … all three of them viewed golf as a series of shots where you need to be able to hit from point A to point B and that "golf" is the skill level of your ability to hit from Point A to Point B (only, more or less).  One other common theme was their obsession with keeping the ball under the hole.  All three of them were completely not interested in all the issues we like in architecture - routing, strategy, setting, hazard philosophy … they all viewed their job as getting the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible (I suppose that is their job.) 


I didn't get to ask all three the same questions, but Torrey Pines South came up as reasonably interesting -- I can see how the course was remodeled to test the best players in the world, but it's not a really interesting course for me and when I play with 10 handicaps, it feels like a par 90. 


Medinah came up as good to them.  I can see that.  Prima facie, it seems a little monotonous, but when you really look at the shots, a lot is asked of you and there's more variety than one would expect.  I played it at 7,200 yards and while I would say it was fun, it was a good test of golf and reasonably interesting.


The Quarry at La Quinta came up as not near the top 100 or 200 or 300 to them … but not for the usual criticisms of a focus on eye candy, no strategy, etc.  Their main comment was that it only required drives and wedges with the exception of the par 5s.


Their really weren't any courses the top 10 player found architecturally interesting -- again focused on getting the ball in the hole - but he did say if he was forced to play a few rounds at a course, he would choose Augusta. 


We talked about Australia for a while, and the top 10 player's favorite is Kingston Heath (which I find interesting because it is my wife's favorite in Australia also and she can only drive the ball 170 yards … maybe).  I felt Royal Melbourne was a lot more interesting. 


Perhaps there's a large spectrum of golf architecture interest / appreciation ranging from Zac Blair and Brooks Koepka on one end to the three I spoke with.     

AChao:
Well, what did your illustrious companions think in regards to your question?  Were there certain famous courses that they found compelling, and others they did not?  Why have us try to guess which are which?


My consultant in Houston says The Old Course is his favorite course in the world, by far, because it’s the only one where he keeps having to adjust his tactics based on position.  And he’s not just saying that to sound smart, Brooks is one of the few top Americans who goes over for the Dunhill every year.

[Tom_Doak]

AChao: 


I wish you’d asked them about a Pete Dye course, for context.  He certainly challenges them, but not always in ways they like to be challenged!


It seems that most of today’s good players focus on the scorecard.  They don’t try to hit different sorts of shots anymore, so variety is just a function of hole yardages.

[Jeff Schley]

IMO weather and wind specifically factor into how effective the architecture can change a course from hard to easy and easy to hard. Isn't that part of the allure of TOC is that you typically have to play the wind principally and then whatever rain etc. of the day? It can play pretty easy without wind, but in wind it is quite a brute, especially the putting.

[AChao]

Hi Tom ... which Pete Dye course would you ask them about?  TPC Sawgrass, Harbor Town, Kiawah, Whistling Straits, and French Lick come to mind.  I'll definitely see 2 of the 3 again and possibly all 3 of them.

AChao: 


I wish you’d asked them about a Pete Dye course, for context.  He certainly challenges them, but not always in ways they like to be challenged!


It seems that most of today’s good players focus on the scorecard.  They don’t try to hit different sorts of shots anymore, so variety is just a function of hole yardages.

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Tom ... which Pete Dye course would you ask them about?  TPC Sawgrass, Harbor Town, Kiawah, Whistling Straits, and French Lick come to mind.  I'll definitely see 2 of the 3 again and possibly all 3 of them.

Just ask what they think of his courses, and see which one they bring up.

[Mark Pearce]

Hi Tom … thanks for chiming-in … all three of them viewed golf as a series of shots where you need to be able to hit from point A to point B and that "golf" is the skill level of your ability to hit from Point A to Point B (only, more or less).  One other common theme was their obsession with keeping the ball under the hole.  All three of them were completely not interested in all the issues we like in architecture - routing, strategy, setting, hazard philosophy … they all viewed their job as getting the ball into the hole in as few strokes as possible (I suppose that is their job.) 

Is no-one else going to call this out? It sounds very much like they were extremely interested in strategy. Indeed, you admit they obsess about one aspect of it.  That strategy for an elite or super elite golfer is different to strategy for a 0-10 handicapper on any particular hole or shot shouldn't surprise any of us.

[Thomas Dai]

Whilst some of those we watch on TV will be playing for trophies, love of the game etc etc there are loads and loads and loads who are playing purely for the money. Because the money available allows them a higher standard of living than they would likely have if they worked in a factory or an office or drive a truck etc etc. As a former Ryder Cup player and long time Chairman of the European Tour Players Committee is supposed to have said “I’d play on an airport runway if the money were right.”
Atb

[Tim_Weiman]

AChao:


Saw your exchange with Tom Doak. Tom was kind enough recently to spend a couple hours showing me the back nine at Memorial in Houston. As you might be aware, the Memorial project is about moving the Houston Open from the Woodlands to Memorial.


Therefore, you might say it will be a case study of whether a course can accommodate both the handicap player and the professional game.


I plan to go have a look at the front nine a a couple weeks, but feel confident the course will be very well received by golfers in Houston. As for the pros, we won’t know until the tournament is played at Memorial next year, but those guys are certainly not my priority.


P.S. a while back I stumbled upon Lee Janzen playing at Waterville with his caddy and two Irish hosts that were probably 10-12 handicaps. After watching Janzen debate the yardage on the first par 3 - I mean disputing the range finder -, I decided the two Irish guys were playing a much more fun game.


Oh, by the way, I have long believed 7-8 is probably the best possible handicap for enjoying golf architecture. Such a player is quite capable of hitting very good shots, but obviously can’t count on it. That is what make that level of handicap so good, IMO.

[JMEvensky]

Oh, by the way, I have long believed 7-8 is probably the best possible handicap for enjoying golf architecture. Such a player is quite capable of hitting very good shots, but obviously can’t count on it. That is what make that level of handicap so good, IMO.

I'm not sure I agree--not all 7's and 8's are created equally. But it would be an interesting discussion.

[Jay Mickle]

The best in the world in other sports set standards that we can barely comprehend 7’ high jumps, 26.2 miles in just over 2 hours etc. Somehow golfers have this delusion that they are closer to professional golfers then they surely are and professional golfers assess themselves against par. Until pros are shooting in the mid 50s the courses aren’t too easy, their standards are too low.