[Wayne_Kozun]

Glen Abbey was built for the RCGA by JN to be the permanent home of the Canadian Open. 

[Matthew Rose]

Has the USGA ever considered building their own courses?

[Steve Lapper]

Has the USGA ever considered building their own courses?

Yes, a few times historically. I think they passed at the time as it would've cut into their private jet travel budget. 


 Fortunately, the current management knows better.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

I understand your viewpoints and opinions on this issue in respect to your present and past roles at the ASGCA.

But does the pragmatic part of you see that bifurcating the ball (in the rare event a top notch event is held) is much better than spending unnecessary time, money, resources, and impact on the environment for hundreds of new professional courses?  Surely it seems using what we already have is the far superior solution, especially given a modified ball would only impact a very tiny group of golfers, at a particular course maybe once or twice per year?

I didn't say we needed new courses.  I think there are plenty that qualifies as tournament courses already.  I am not sure what the USGA is doing in their new effort to limit the ball, but we have to live with it in any case, but in general, no, I don't necessarily agree with any dramatic rollbacks.  The same argument can be used....99% of golfers need and want all the feel and distance they can get.  I don't see much use in worrying about the top 1%.  Besides, the only courses that would benefit are older courses desirous of holding big tournaments.  Do we worry about that small number of courses or the larger mass of golfers?  Far better to just acknowledge than any new courses probably don't need to be of championship caliber, but rather designed for fun.  at least, IMHO.

[Mike Bodo]

Glen Abbey was built for the RCGA by JN to be the permanent home of the Canadian Open.

Good one, Wayne! Indeed it was, but I've never been impresed with that course. There are a few decent holes, but compared to Muirfield Village it's far from Jack's best work. I'd put it on par with his course at PGA National where the Honda touranment was played last weekend.

[John Emerson]

Valhalla was designed specifically by the owner to host majors. That was his only and primary objective. Worked out pretty well I’d say.

[Max Prokopy]

PGA West Stadium, TPC Sawgrass.  I would also say French Lick resort, over 8,000 yards what else was Pete Dye striving for? Same for Whistling Straits.  Of course the twenty ten course at Celtic Manor.

Yes I thought Whistling Straits had the PGA secured by the time the course hit its first offseason.

[Garland Bayley]

...99% of golfers need and want all the feel and distance they can get. ...

Total BS. If the ball were reduced 50% and courses adjusted accordingly, the game would be the same! (well maybe some golfers would discover they didn't need 14 clubs) Golfers don't need distance to play the game! However, misguided golf course developers keep asking architects to build longer, more difficult courses.

What we have is size envy, and men in particular are fixated on size.

[Thomas Dai]

...99% of golfers need and want all the feel and distance they can get. ...

Total BS. If the ball were reduced 50% and courses adjusted accordingly, the game would be the same! (well maybe some golfers would discover they didn't need 14 clubs) Golfers don't need distance to play the game! However, misguided golf course developers keep asking architects to build longer, more difficult courses.
What we have is size envy, and men in particular are fixated on size.

Well said Garland!
atb

[Mike Bodo]

Total BS. If the ball were reduced 50% and courses adjusted accordingly, the game would be the same! (well maybe some golfers would discover they didn't need 14 clubs) Golfers don't need distance to play the game! However, misguided golf course developers keep asking architects to build longer, more difficult courses.

What we have is size envy, and men in particular are fixated on size.

Thanks for providing the segue on the subject of length, as I wanted to comment on this last night, but wasn't sure to post here or a different topic.


The pursuit of ever longer courses to better challenge professional men golfer's is a fools errand, as today's long ball hitters aren't fazed by it. In the immortal words of Justin Thomas after shooting 61 at Medinah during the 2019 BMW championship where the course played at 7,700 yds.

It doesn't matter what golf course it is. You give us soft, good greens and soft fairways, we're going to tear it apart. It's just how it is.

Is the next step in the quest for length to better challenge the longest of the long in the game to design courses that are 8,000 yds. in length? How about 8,500? Where's the end game if that's the case?


I posit why aren't more courses being built around 7,000 yds with significant movement and hazards where the obvious play from the tee on each four or five shot hole isn't driver? One of the reasons I enjoy watching the PGA Tour stop at Harbor Town is because there are a number of holes where driver isn't the best play or even a reasonable consideration off the tee, as positioning is more critical to scoring than length. Better yet it's only of 7,100 yds. in length.


Build more courses where a 3, 5-wood or driving iron from the tee is the better or only sound play, as it brings a wider variety of shot options and clubs into play. Nothing worse than watching tournaments where it's a bomb and gouge fest and the best gouger and putter wins. There's not a lot of skill required for that. If designing/building courses expressly for professional men's play make them so they require a variety of shots and shot shapes and forces the player to use all 14 clubs in their bag. That's the ultimate design achievement, IMO.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Glen Abbey was built for the RCGA by JN to be the permanent home of the Canadian Open.

Good one, Wayne! Indeed it was, but I've never been impresed with that course. There are a few decent holes, but compared to Muirfield Village it's far from Jack's best work. I'd put it on par with his course at PGA National where the Honda touranment was played last weekend.

Agreed on the quality of the course. Most of the course is forgettable.  There are some good holes in the valley from 11-15. And the 18th hole is certainly dramatic and was the site of one of Tiger's most heroic shots.


I think it has been good that they have moved to some of the classic courses, like Stanley Thompson's St. Georges and Colt's Hamilton.

[Thomas Dai]

...99% of golfers need and want all the feel and distance they can get. ...

Total BS. If the ball were reduced 50% and courses adjusted accordingly, the game would be the same! (well maybe some golfers would discover they didn't need 14 clubs) Golfers don't need distance to play the game! However, misguided golf course developers keep asking architects to build longer, more difficult courses.
What we have is size envy, and men in particular are fixated on size.

A 50% length course played with a 50% distance ball ought to result in pretty much the same number of shots as a 100% length course played with a 100% distance ball.

It oughtn't take 4-5-6 hrs to play 18-holes on such a basis however, while costs and thus greenfees and subs should be less, safety issues should be alleviated and the amount of land and water etc the game uses on our finite sized planet with an ever increasing and needy population should also be less.

Now if there's one person who likely is of sufficient standing in the game to influence and thus alter the way golf moves in the future its Tiger. And guess what he's up to design wise, yip a new 8,000 yard course with a 700 yard par-5 - https://www.golfdigest.com/story/tiger-woods-marcella-club-utah-announcement


All rather sad.

atb

[Bruce Katona]

Slapper:

Yellow Card and a strong warning from the match referee!  No picking on the USGA


Jeff B:  I'm kind of liking the 250 course tournament level course concept idea......hopefully these places have a set of tees in the 6400-6700 yard range for someone like me to give it a go on occasion. 

[Max Prokopy]

Is the next step in the quest for length to better challenge the longest of the long in the game to design courses that are 8,000 yds. in length? How about 8,500? Where's the end game if that's the case?

Build more courses where a 3, 5-wood or driving iron from the tee is the better or only sound play, as it brings a wider variety of shot options and clubs into play. Nothing worse than watching tournaments where it's a bomb and gouge fest and the best gouger and putter wins. There's not a lot of skill required for that. If designing/building courses expressly for professional men's play make them so they require a variety of shots and shot shapes and forces the player to use all 14 clubs in their bag. That's the ultimate design achievement, IMO.

I like your idea in principle, but isn't that just making all the players play holes the same way?  At their level of performance, I think the end result becomes less democratic.  Plus, fans and TV don't want to see John Rahm hitting 2 irons off 6 teeboxes.


The easy way to rein in scoring is to reclaim bunkers as true hazards and make conditions as firm as possible.  The latter is not an option at many US/PGA tour stops. 

[Steve Lapper]

Slapper:

Yellow Card and a strong warning from the match referee!  No picking on the USGA


Jeff B:  I'm kind of liking the 250 course tournament level course concept idea......hopefully these places have a set of tees in the 6400-6700 yard range for someone like me to give it a go on occasion.

Bruce,


  Unlike Fox News, I was fair and balanced!!!


  Current management are rocket scientists compared with the past dandruff producers!




PS...I'm getting long Jet A futures for the Playground!!! :`)

[Mike Bodo]

I like your idea in principle, but isn't that just making all the players play holes the same way?  At their level of performance, I think the end result becomes less democratic.  Plus, fans and TV don't want to see John Rahm hitting 2 irons off 6 teeboxes.

I don't want to see Rahm hitting that many driving irons off tees either, but one or two holes a side hitting anything but driver would be fine. Heck, I recall Open Championships where Tiger hit mainly 3-woods and irons off tees and it was both fascinating from a strategic standpoint and entertaining. Also, where Rahm may hit 3-wood off a tee lesser hitters of the ball may still opt and play driver. Thus, it's a much more nuanced approach to design I'm suggesting, as club selection will be predicated on a players ability to execute particular types of shots and we know not all professional players are created equal.

The easy way to rein in scoring is to reclaim bunkers as true hazards and make conditions as firm as possible.  The latter is not an option at many US/PGA tour stops.

Agree - especially as it concerns bunkers. If they're not going to penal other than you're hitting the ball off sand vs. grass than why bother having them and the maintenance costs that comes with other than aesthetics?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

A 50% length course played with a 50% distance ball ought to result in pretty much the same number of shots as a 100% length course played with a 100% distance ball.

That's not true at all.

The hole is still 4.25".

If you reduced distance to 10% (ball and course) do you think scoring would be the same? Of course not. An approach shot that you played from 160 would now be played from 16 yards. You're far, far more likely to get a 16-yard shot close to the hole than a 160-yard shot.

Scoring would be reduced significantly at 50%.

[Bruce Katona]

Slapper:

Long on anything to do with Playground is music to my ears! 

[Matthew Rose]

If par is sacred, then maybe build more par 70s and less 72s?

Add another par-three. Instead of a short par four half of a PGA tour field will birdie, throw a 250 yard brute in there. Meanwhile, I don't know any novice players who would ever complain about an extra par three.

[Thomas Dai]

A 50% length course played with a 50% distance ball ought to result in pretty much the same number of shots as a 100% length course played with a 100% distance ball.

That's not true at all.
The hole is still 4.25".
If you reduced distance to 10% (ball and course) do you think scoring would be the same? Of course not. An approach shot that you played from 160 would now be played from 16 yards. You're far, far more likely to get a 16-yard shot close to the hole than a 160-yard shot.
Scoring would be reduced significantly at 50%.

Whatever
atb

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()