Why was Torrey Pines a swing and a miss?

[Ted Sturges]

I don't know whether this is true or not, but I've always thought Torrey Pines to be the worst golf course in the current US Open rota.  I just see the place as a swing and a miss (though I'm certain some here will disagree, as I'm sure TP has its fans).  The site, to me, is not as appealing as Pacific Dunes, but reasonably close...meaning, they could have achieved something much better there than what they have.  Why was TP a swing and a miss?  Could it be fixed at this point in time?  Is it worth fixing?


TS

[Mark Kiely]

You must've missed this. No reason for two threads on this.


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69834.0.html

[Joel_Stewart]

I played with Rees quite a few years ago and asked him about it.  He was frustrated and basically said he was handcuffed by various people, namely the Century Club and I think the CCC. He's not proud of the work there.

[Pete Lavallee]

A telling fact could be that both architects were picked because of who their father was and not their display of creativity. William Francis Bell created purely functional courses; his father William Park Bell had the creative gene. Rees has the reputation for building tough courses like his Dad. When seeking a US Open why not turn to the “Open Doctor” or his son?

[Ronald Montesano]

Are you sure that the two threads are asking the same question, Mark? Reason I ask is, the title of the other thread has nothing to do with the question that the originator poses. Rees Jones did not design Torrey Pines South, so any casting-out would do nothing to the original routing. This thread's title aligns with its question.

Also, good to know that you've appointed yourself the something of something with judgmental powers. I'll be certain to not use verbs that others have used in other threads; nouns, too.Thursday salt from Ron

You must've missed this. No reason for two threads on this.


https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,69834.0.html

[Mark Kiely]

Yeah because wasn't this site fun when we had six different threads about how Bryson was ruining the game last year?

[Charles Lund]

I'll call the origination of this duplicate thread a swing and a miss.


Charles Lund

[Ben Hollerbach]

What type of land was left to Bell after the Army left the site in '45 and the racetrack was abandoned in '56? You'd have to imagine that little natural contour was left when Bell began working. Being a municipal project, would he have had the budget to try and rebuild the site back to a more "natural" state?

[Craig Sweet]

There is little about this course that interests me. I think it takes a very compelling match (Rock v Tiger, for example) to make watching golf on this course less than boring.

[Tim Leahy]

There is little about this course that interests me. I think it takes a very compelling match (Rock v Tiger, for example) to make watching golf on this course less than boring.

Are you related to the other Sweet jerk that thinks TPS is a boring track?

[Craig Sweet]

Yes, and I'm polite enough not to personalize YOUR attack on my opinion of Torrey Pines. As a course to play every day, Torrey Pines looks like a fine, nicely conditioned, track. As a US Open test? Big Fail...

[Jeff Schley]

Yes, and I'm polite enough not to personalize YOUR attack on my opinion of Torrey Pines. As a course to play every day, Torrey Pines looks like a fine, nicely conditioned, track. As a US Open test? Big Fail...

I dont love TPS, however it was the stage for the greatest thrilling major championship playoff I can remember back in 08. What a story and the course didn’t take away from it in my view.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I don't know if it is a swing and a miss but I never took advantage of playing it when I was in So Cal. I probably should not make up my mind about a course from tv.

[jeffwarne]

Yes, and I'm polite enough not to personalize YOUR attack on my opinion of Torrey Pines. As a course to play every day, Torrey Pines looks like a fine, nicely conditioned, track. As a US Open test? Big Fail...

It seems the US Open is ALWAYS about the setup anyway.
When fairways 25 yards wide are surrounded by rough, and the greens are firm..does "architecture" matter all that much?
As a US Open "test" I mean(quoting from above).
I see many holes I'd like to play, and I'd take it in its presented form over playing Kiawah or TPC all day long.


But that doesn't mean I don't think some simple, low cost strategic improvements could be made to bunkering placement, shape and severity.
But nothing in a municipal environment is low cost or simple anymore(esp in CA)

[David_Tepper]

I posted this on the other Torrey Pines thread. At the risk of being immodest, I think it merits consideration here.

While it may or may not be relevant, Torrey Pines has produced an impressive list of winners in the Farmers tournament.

In the last 29 years (since 1993), that event has been won just 7 times by players who have not won a major (P. Jacobsen, N. Watney, J. Rahm, M. Leishman, S. Stallings and twice by B. Snedeker).

Major winners who have won at Torrey 22 times are T. Woods (6x), P. Mickelson (3x), J. Day (2x), C. Stadler, J. Daly, J.M. Olazabal, D. Love, M. O'Meara, S. Simpson, J. Daly, B. Crane, B. Watson, J. Rose and P. Reed.

It can be debated whether or not good golf courses identify good golfers. There is no denying Torrey Pines has done so.

[Charles Lund]

Following in the footsteps of Dave Tepper, I'm copying my post , which elaborates on the history of this so called bland, not much to offer muni, which for some reason is being ridiculed for not being Cape Kidnappers, Pacific Dunes, U.S. Open sites that are among the best in world private clubs, and two of the best resort courses in the U.S. that are on the Open rota.


By coincidence, I had looked up winners going back to the 50s, in precursors to the Farmers.  You will also see Littler, Casper, Bolt, Palmer, Nicklaus, Player, Tom Watson, Fuzzy Zoeller, Johnny Miller, besides the winners Dave Tepper mentions. 

You can also look up past winners of World Junior Championship winners at the tournament hosted there over the years, an impressive list.

The surprise breaks, hard to read greens, juicy greenside rough, and sloping fairways that reduce the effective width of fairways and favor players who work it into slopes are what public players encounter when they play the course.We'll see what kind of drama unfolds over the weekend. 

I'm glad I can play it at the Senior Resident rate and like the fact that a muni course I like and play is hosting the U.S. Open again.

I had the good fortune of making a hole in one on #3 in 2010.  The experience adds to my viewing enjoyment.

Charles Lund

[William_G]

it's a miss because there is no TW
lush overseeded rough is not natural for the desert, see Wilshire CC
the cartpaths look more interesting than the fairways

[Bill Gayne]

I've been watching and best I can tell there's no strategic advantage to be gained by being either left or right in the fairway. From what I've seen it's all about being long and in the fairway. Do fairway angles matter at TP?

[Craig Sweet]

Jeff..



"I dont love TPS, however it was the stage for the greatest thrilling major championship playoff I can remember back in 08. What a story and the course didn’t take away from it in my view."




What you're saying is a good golfer matched Tiger, shot for shot, on a course that gave neither an advantage....you don't have to think your way around, you don't have to shape as many shots, play angles and position yourself...where as most majors present a challenge that will give the better golfer an advantage...bringing out his superior mental and physical skills.

[Tim Leahy]

it's a miss because there is no TW
lush overseeded rough is not natural for the desert, see Wilshire CC
the cartpaths look more interesting than the fairways

Fairways and greens aren't natural for the desert either but I guess your spending too much time watching the cartpaths to notice those.

[Tim Leahy]

Jeff..



"I dont love TPS, however it was the stage for the greatest thrilling major championship playoff I can remember back in 08. What a story and the course didn’t take away from it in my view."




What you're saying is a good golfer matched Tiger, shot for shot, on a course that gave neither an advantage....you don't have to think your way around, you don't have to shape as many shots, play angles and position yourself...where as most majors present a challenge that will give the better golfer an advantage...bringing out his superior mental and physical skills.

How many times have you played TPS or even walked it?

[Craig Sweet]

Tim, I'm a jerk, so what does it matter what my opinion is.  Tell me what you love about TPS and why you think it should be in the Open rotation.

[V. Kmetz]

... a course that gave neither an advantage....you don't have to think your way around, you don't have to shape as many shots, play angles and position yourself...where as most majors present a challenge that will give the better golfer an advantage...bringing out his superior mental and physical skills.

I can see both an aesthetic and playability critique of the swollen finger bunker style...and there will be an omnipresent fail-safe to criticize USGA presentation...but other than those, I feel you're not paying close attention to this tournament.


The course is showing well; the national championship bona fides of the one shot holes, which are breathable and diverse is on display...#3 is an exacting thrill at like four different distances and can play as lofted shot or a downhill Redan... 8 is like the coolest one shot Lions Mouth I've ever seen... (have you see another?)..11 is a worthy brute in an Olympian environment and 16 is rife with the pull of the canyons, its exacting green side play with the limitless skyline of ocean beyond. 


I'll concede that not every 4 is the zenith of strategic design, but #s 4, 12 and #14 are as good as any on national championship courses and when you're there, 5, 7 15 and 17 are challenging and fun to play.  All four long holes are honest (playing 6 this week as a 4) and give these guys honest chances for 3s while producing a surprising number of 6s...


These greens are MUCH more interesting than I recall from my one visit over 25 years ago...I love the huge surfaces with swells and rolls and shelves... putting and running chips are real shots...


This leader board is almost as good as any could be, by rabnk or by great story; young lions and established major winners.... Louis, McIlroy, BDC, DJ, Morikawa, Xander..even Kopeka and Molinari lurk... Torrey has consistently produced good tournaments and stellar winners and if you've visited the course, you find a beautiful stirring environment which played from a sensible tee will give you a good time.

[Matt_Cohn]

The course is showing well; the national championship bona fides of the one shot holes, which are breathable and diverse is on display...#3 is an exacting thrill at like four different distances and can play as lofted shot or a downhill Redan... 8 is like the coolest one shot Lions Mouth I've ever seen... (have you see another?)..11 is a worthy brute in an Olympian environment and 16 is rife with the pull of the canyons, its exacting green side play with the limitless skyline of ocean beyond. 


3 is not a redan as the left side is higher than the right, but that's not a big deal. The shaping right of the green is very awkward, though.
8 is an awkward looking par-3 with a big front bunker. I'm not sure if that counts as a lion's mouth!
11 and 16 are good, typically very similar in length. The left tee on 16 does differentiate it a bit.

I'll concede that not every 4 is the zenith of strategic design, but #s 4, 12 and #14 are as good as any on national championship courses and when you're there, 5, 7 15 and 17 are challenging and fun to play.  All four long holes are honest (playing 6 this week as a 4) and give these guys honest chances for 3s while producing a surprising number of 6s...


4 also has some pretty bad shaping. The little funnel-mound short-right is really weird looking and a strangely easy feature on a course where everything else is designed to be hard.
5 is nothing special. Straight, bunkers on both sides, bunker front-right of the green.
6 has a lovely canyon-side setting...with 4 bunkers on the outside of the dogleg. It's a bit weird.
7 is a bit sexier but has the same green as 5, basically. Note on its shaping below.
Neither 12 nor 15 is special in any way other than being very long. Literally any architect could have designed those holes in 10 minutes.
14 is in fact an excellent hole, and 17 is also pretty good now.



A few other spots have some of the least artistic shaping I've ever seen on a serious golf course. On 7, they added a new fairway bunker past the old one (why would you add a bunker to a US Open course? Doesn't that make it easier?) Anyway, it's over a rise on a downslope, so they elevated the bunker for visibility from the tee. As a result, the back of the bunker is maybe 6 or 7 feet higher than the surrounding land. It looks silly.

These greens are MUCH more interesting than I recall from my one visit over 25 years ago...I love the huge surfaces with swells and rolls and shelves... putting and running chips are real shots...


The old ones were pretty much single-slope back-to-front. The new ones have much more slope than I expected before I got there. I don't really like the style—tiers, not really rolls and swells—but there's a lot going on. Nobody would say they look like Maxwell greens though. They look like Rees greens.

None of these things make TPS any less of a test, but I don't think anyone ever said it wasn't a good test of pro golfers' skills. What it lacks is artistry and creativity, and you can decide for yourself how important that is to you.

[Peter Pallotta]

VK's post brought this to mind:
That on this TP thread and others, and on similar threads about other courses, the discussion is often focused on what a course isn't more than on what it is. And the essential & fundamental bias of that type of approach, the inherent pre-judgement involved there, makes for mediocre discussion and even worse analysis. [And it happens to/can involve even the best among us: if I tried to find Tom D's 10 weakest posts of all time, I'd guess that 80% of them would involve MacRaynor courses.] It basically rejects outright the Big World Theory of gca, and also the oft-stated belief that gca opinions are all 'subjective' (not that we're obliged to adhere to either of those theories, though they do seem to be conventional wisdom around here). As I say, it just seems an unsatisfying way to discuss a golf course. I mean, C&C courses aren't many things, and DMK or Hanse or Doak courses aren't many things too -- but with those we most often focus on what they actually are instead.