Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jim Hoak on July 19, 2023, 12:43:34 PM
-
This is one of those assertions I read and wonder if it is true--and if it is, Why? It is being used to once again defend a course like Royal Liverpool, which is somewhat underappreciated and sometimes maligned. Is it necessary for this trite statement to be true to defend it?
-
This is one of those assertions I read and wonder if it is true--and if it is, Why? It is being used to once again defend a course like Royal Liverpool, which is somewhat underappreciated and sometimes maligned. Is it necessary for this trite statement to be true to defend it?
This assertion seems to have gathered steam the past few years. It's a load of cobblers. Any of these guys are good enough to catch fire. Why is it necessarily so that if a Ben Curtis or Bill Rogers wins at Sandwich that it is no longer a great course?
Ciao
-
The longer an event goes on the greater the likelihood that the cream will rise to the top.
Kinda relates to a thread I raised recently about playing Mens Major Championships over 5 days and run of the mill mens pro tournaments over only 3 days.
And the cream would likely rise to the top even more if clubs weren’t of the customised quality they are these days, course conditioning wasn’t at the manicured level it is these days and the ball didn’t perform as it has since the year 2000.
Atb
-
The longer an event goes on the greater the likelihood that the cream will rise to the top.
Kinda relates to a thread I raised recently about playing Mens Major Championships over 5 days and run of the mill mens pro tournaments over only 3 days.
And the cream would likely rise to the top even more if clubs weren’t of the customised quality they are these days, course conditioning wasn’t at the manicured level it is these days and the ball didn’t perform as it has since the year 2000.
Atb
That’s one definition of greatness, I suppose.
But equal to this is an exigent that you must prove yourself in this moment on one hole. Have at it. If you can’t beat everyone in that one moment, if your skills aren’t on demand, can you be labeled great?
Obviously that does little with a full field so there is at least a balance to the size of the field and the amount of golf played.
There’s also an implied assertion that golf courses with more than 18 holes would be more worthy “tests” of greatness… applying your logic.
I think we are circling around the idea that greatness is measured by players that have the least variance in their games. And that more varied tests are the best way to examine that.
More isn’t necessarily better, but more AND different may be.
-
Kyle,
Besides logistics, why not a 144 hole US Open. The first week at Merion and the second week at Oakmont? Or PH2 and TCC?
Would be fun viewing.
Ira
-
As to the OP, pure media nonsense (which I think was Jim's point). Anyone who wins a Major is in a category of their own in terms of talent. The golf course was not a factor in their success regardless of its "ranking". Nor should the tournament results affect the assessment of the course (Jim's point again).
Ira
-
The best players hone their games and try to peak at the Majors, regardless of the site.
-
But are there certain courses—or types of courses or architectural characteristics—that favor multiple winner champions? Or conversely are there things in some courses that favor flukes, “one-hit wonders”?
What I’m getting at is the assertion heard many times that Royal Liverpool must be a great course because the past winners have been great, career-long major champions.
I think probably as Sean and Ira said it’s all b.s.
-
I think there’s something to the statement, but I can’t put my finger on it. Game design should effect winner type and winner consistency, sometimes dramatically… I think maybe the causation is flipped. Great players, when we know they are great (however we define that), where they tend to win should identify the courses that reflect the attributes we want in a player.
I really think 72 holes is plenty to separate the wheat from the chaff. That said, I like a bit of randomness in my sports, so give me the NCAA style win-or-go-home because who doesn’t love an underdog :)
-
But are there certain courses—or types of courses or architectural characteristics—that favor multiple winner champions? Or conversely are there things in some courses that favor flukes, “one-hit wonders”?
What I’m getting at is the assertion heard many times that Royal Liverpool must be a great course because the past winners have been great, career-long major champions.
I think probably as Sean and Ira said it’s all b.s.
If Rory, Phil and Tiger win majors in a parking lot is it a great course? Courses are used for majors because they are usually considered to be great tests of golf, however that is defined. A great course may be a great test, but a great test isn't necessarily a great course.
The media and pundits need stories. Great courses produce great champions sounds good. It's nonsense, much like "the course requires every club in the bag".
Ciao
-
The longer an event goes on the greater the likelihood that the cream will rise to the top.
Only if you define the cream as being the consistently good. Imagine if the majors were played over 10 rounds, how many times Matt Kuchar might have won.
Niall
-
But are there certain courses—or types of courses or architectural characteristics—that favor multiple winner champions? Or conversely are there things in some courses that favor flukes, “one-hit wonders”?
What I’m getting at is the assertion heard many times that Royal Liverpool must be a great course because the past winners have been great, career-long major champions.
I think probably as Sean and Ira said it’s all b.s.
A great course ought to produce the champion who plays the best that week, not the one with the best career resume. We all know those two things aren't the same.
I do think there are maybe a few courses where being a brilliant tactician matters more than others, and favors great players whose skills include knowing when to parry and when to thrust. Nicklaus and Tiger Woods both won twice at The Old Course, and that wasn't solely because they were the longest hitters, it was because they plotted their way around it well, to avoid fairway bunkers but also avoid 100-foot three-putts.
Hoylake might used to have been one of those courses. It was very plain looking and difficult to decipher, and there was o.b. very close to a bunch of fairways and greens, so you really had to think about how close you could go. So it wasn't the kind of course someone like Phil Mickelson would win on. I first played it with their historian John Graham [whose father was the third best player at the club, behind Johnny Ball and Harold Hilton!], and I learned to embrace its plain-ness. Some of the pictures I've seen in the lead-up to the Open make me very upset, and not just the new 17th. It looks like they opted for plastic surgery and went too far.
-
Speaking of the new 17 at Liverpool, am I the only one who thinks it looks terribly out of place with the frilly bunkers and exposed sand? (not that i'm against that look in general)
Reminds me a bit of a local course that had to re-arrange its routing and build a new 9th hole. They brought in some east coast guy so its 17 rugged looking, sage brush, mountain-esque type holes, and 1 hole that looks to be transported from Florida. Very odd to say the least.
-
Maybe the best (aka: rigorous) course "set ups" identify the best player(s).
-
Not comparing him to anyone else but Jack Nicklaus won 18 men’s pro majors.
He also finished runner-up in 19, and 3rd in 46. 19 and 46! Quite staggering numbers.
I can’t help but wonder how many more than 18 men’s pro majors he’d have won if they’d been 5-day (90-hole) events.
Atb
-
Great courses do always identify the best players, but only if you include these four words at the end, "who played that week."
-
Speaking of the new 17 at Liverpool, am I the only one who thinks it looks terribly out of place with the frilly bunkers and exposed sand? (not that i'm against that look in general)
Reminds me a bit of a local course that had to re-arrange its routing and build a new 9th hole. They brought in some east coast guy so its 17 rugged looking, sage brush, mountain-esque type holes, and 1 hole that looks to be transported from Florida. Very odd to say the least.
Jon Rahm on the new 17th: "It is a fair hole because it is unfair for everyone."
And no, I am not trying to set off a discussion about fairness.
-
From another sport but a not dissimilar context.
The great Formula 1, LeMans/Sportscar and Paris-Dakar driver Belgian Jackie Ickx, who was famous amongst his peers and others for racing exceptionally well in difficult wet and rainy conditions, was once asked why he liked racing in such conditions. His reply “I don’t, I hate wet and rainy conditions, but I know the other guys hate those conditions even more than I do.”
Atb
-
To flip this question...... Do "bad" courses identify the worst players? I mean play if you played the US Open at any course hosting the Desert Classic, which typically play the easiest each year on tour. LaQuinta CC, Nicklaus Tournament etc. Would that site identify a golfer that isn't good?
-
Jeff, isn't the question not that it would produce the "worst" golfer--but the biggest "fluke"? I understand the assertion to be saying that a less-good course may give us the most chance for a fluky winner. One reason I think the trite statement is wrong, is that Ben Curtis--maybe the biggest fluke winner in recent years--won on a great course.
-
Jeff, isn't the question not that it would produce the "worst" golfer--but the biggest "fluke"? I understand the assertion to be saying that a less-good course may give us the most chance for a fluky winner. One reason I think the trite statement is wrong, is that Ben Curtis--maybe the biggest fluke winner in recent years--won on a great course.
I love Sandwich, too, but a lot of the modern players have described it as fluky, because some of the contours are so sharp.
There are always going to be fluke winners, even on the least disputed great courses. When a guy has the week of his lifetime, what are you supposed to do about it? Tony Lema at St. Andrews, Todd Hamilton at Troon, Retief Goossen at Shinnecock. None of them were supposed to win, but they went out and won, and it kinda sucks that people look for a reason to look down on those wins. It's not like Paul Lawrie where someone else [who would also have been seen as a fluke] handed it to him.
-
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
-
I think we need to be careful how we frame flukes at the Open. I suspect that if the tour played more than one or two rounds per year against the Irish or North Sea, we would have a notably different pantheon of great players.
-
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
Well, Brian Harman has contended in two or three previous majors. He led for a round or two at Erin Hills, and played well recently at LACC. He's also [historically] a bit of a short hitter in modern golf, and short hitters have their best chance at The Open, where the firmness of the ground minimizes the need for length and emphasizes the need for control.
If he wins, it won't be a fluke.
-
I think we need to be careful how we frame flukes at the Open. I suspect that if the tour played more than one or two rounds per year against the Irish or North Sea, we would have a notably different pantheon of great players.
Nicklaus, Woods, Watson, Faldo, Player, and Ballesteros would have won even more.
-
When we get a Major winner who doesn't have a ton of PGA Tour success, it simply makes me think that perhaps many Tour sites don't ask the right questions.
-
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
Harman has been great at every single level
he has played on the pga tour almost his entire career
2nd in the US OPEN, 6th Open, Top 15 in PGA and the Masters
Lot of great players
2,3,4,5,6 are superstars
-
And the top 10 seldom looks fluky.
-
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
Harman has been great at every single level
he has played on the pga tour almost his entire career
2nd in the US OPEN, 6th Open, Top 15 in PGA and the Masters
Lot of great players
2,3,4,5,6 are superstars
So Harman is "great" with two PGA Tour wins in over 10+ years on Tour.
And in Majors, he's missed the cut in nearly half of em and has 3 top 10 finishes in 30 appearances.
Meanwhile.
Retief Goosen is somehow a "fluke" despite:
- 7 PGA Tour wins
- 14 European Tour wins
- 5 Asian Tour wins
- 2 Majors wins
- 16 top 10s in majors
-
As I understand the quoted assertion, it is meant to glorify a criticized course as "great" because a string of great players have won there. I believe this assertion is silly and not true. With Harman's win, it looks once again to be a statement that is not true.
Hoylake may be a great course for other reasons, but its ability to identify great players isn't one of them.
I have no reason not to congratulate Harman on his win, but this was one of the least exciting majors I have ever seen. Sorry I got up so early for several days
-
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
Well, Brian Harman has contended in two or three previous majors. He led for a round or two at Erin Hills, and played well recently at LACC. He's also [historically] a bit of a short hitter in modern golf, and short hitters have their best chance at The Open, where the firmness of the ground minimizes the need for length and emphasizes the need for control.
If he wins, it won't be a fluke.
This.
Plus he won by six.
-
Retief Goosen is somehow a "fluke" despite:
- 7 PGA Tour wins
- 14 European Tour wins
- 5 Asian Tour wins
- 2 Majors wins
- 16 top 10s in majors
Goosen definitely wasn't a fluke -- I was going to point that out as a strange statement. When he won at Shinnecock, it was his second US Open victory and he'd also had four top 10s at the Open and a runner-up finish at the Masters. He won the Tour Championship later that year, too.
Even if he meant the first US Open victory at Southern Hills instead of the one at Shinnecock, Goosen already had four European Tour victories and two Open Championship top 10s at that point. He also finished first on the European Tour money list that season. He wouldn't have been one of the favorites but it's not like he was a random guy who made it through local qualifying, and obviously it wasn't a fluke win in retrospect when considering the whole of his career.
-
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
Harman has been great at every single level
he has played on the pga tour almost his entire career
2nd in the US OPEN, 6th Open, Top 15 in PGA and the Masters
Lot of great players
2,3,4,5,6 are superstars
So Harman is "great" with two PGA Tour wins in over 10+ years on Tour.
And in Majors, he's missed the cut in nearly half of em and has 3 top 10 finishes in 30 appearances.
Meanwhile.
Retief Goosen is somehow a "fluke" despite:
- 7 PGA Tour wins
- 14 European Tour wins
- 5 Asian Tour wins
- 2 Majors wins
- 16 top 10s in majors
I think you need to look at why Goosen might have been considered a fluke winner when he won his first major.
His record going into the the 2001 US Open at Southern Hills was.
No PGA tour wins
4 European tour wins
No Asian Tour wins
2 top 10s in Majors
Yes, Retief was not a fluke winner given we have the ability so see his career following his first major victory. At the time no one had the benefit of seeing the future. Maybe the same will be true for Brian Harman or maybe not. Regardless, it was a hell of a performance.
-
I'm not sure I understand the meaning of fluke winner the way others do as none of Curtis, Hamilton, Lawrie or Goosen were fluke winners in my view and neither was Harman. Each of them played the best golf that week. Yes, this Open was perhaps the least exciting for a while but that was down to Harmans dominant display. His level of control was simply a class apart and if you get frustrated by guys playing bomb and gouge winning all the time then surely you have to applaud Harmans display.
Niall
-
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
Harman has been great at every single level
he has played on the pga tour almost his entire career
2nd in the US OPEN, 6th Open, Top 15 in PGA and the Masters
Lot of great players
2,3,4,5,6 are superstars
So Harman is "great" with two PGA Tour wins in over 10+ years on Tour.
And in Majors, he's missed the cut in nearly half of em and has 3 top 10 finishes in 30 appearances.
Meanwhile.
Retief Goosen is somehow a "fluke" despite:
- 7 PGA Tour wins
- 14 European Tour wins
- 5 Asian Tour wins
- 2 Majors wins
- 16 top 10s in majors
Who said Goosen was a fluke?
How bout now?
Is Harman a great PGA Tour player?
Brian Harman is not the Champion Golfer of the Year because of a stroke of luck
This topic was discussed after the US Open- the best player of the week wins the event- some courses and conditions set up for players better than others, not that complicated.
-
Certain courses diminish the advantage long hitters have and Royal Liverpool seemed, based on my limited viewing, to do the same. Many fairways were pinched at points that prevented players from simply hitting driver as far as they could.
It makes sense to me that such a course will yield a more varied list of winners.
-
Jason
Can't you say the same thing most weeks about pinch points ? Admittedly I don't watch much apart from the majors but is it not true that most weeks they tend to bring the fairways in for the bombers but that more often than not one of them wins anyway. If that is the case then the question is why didn't that happen at Hoylake ?
Niall
-
...and it looks like we are well on the way for another one this year.
Harman has been great at every single level
he has played on the pga tour almost his entire career
2nd in the US OPEN, 6th Open, Top 15 in PGA and the Masters
Lot of great players
2,3,4,5,6 are superstars
So Harman is "great" with two PGA Tour wins in over 10+ years on Tour.
And in Majors, he's missed the cut in nearly half of em and has 3 top 10 finishes in 30 appearances.
Meanwhile.
Retief Goosen is somehow a "fluke" despite:
- 7 PGA Tour wins
- 14 European Tour wins
- 5 Asian Tour wins
- 2 Majors wins
- 16 top 10s in majors
Who said Goosen was a fluke?
How bout now?
Is Harman a great PGA Tour player?
Brian Harman is not the Champion Golfer of the Year because of a stroke of luck
This topic was discussed after the US Open- the best player of the week wins the event- some courses and conditions set up for players better than others, not that complicated.
Go check reply 20. Tom also called two other Champion Golfers of the Year flukes in that same post.
I actually only disagree with him on Retief, and would probably add a dozen or so more to the fluke list, including BH of course. ;) History has a lot of One Major winners, a lot more than you would think.
-
Kalen
There have been loads of one major winners and some of them have only shone brightly for that one week, Todd Hamilton and Ben Curtis among them, but I just don't see them as fluke winners when they prevailed over the best in the world over the course of 4 rounds (and in some cases a play off also).
I'm not sure how you'd have a fluke winner other than perhaps someone winning because the guy with the better score managed to get himself disqualified. But then again, abiding by the rules is also part of it.
Niall
-
Niall,
You bring up good points here. It is difficult to determine a "fluke" in this context, and there is no shortage of one time major winners. (146 in total, and 43 of them are Open winners.)
Perhaps the algorithm would/should include some combination of "other wins". Guys like Furyk, Sergio, Rose, Cink, Duval, and Day are also one time winners and given their other wins I certainly wouldn't put them in that category.
-
We really don't know who might be a "fluke" until their career is over. Harmon has been a solid player, just not a prolific winner to this point in his career. Winning the Open is a surprise, but these guys are so good that many could catch fire one week.
-
The question I keep returning to is: Ought a great (tournament) course to necessarily test ALL parts of a player's game? Or ought the course to decide for itself which skills are tested, and in what proportion?
Is Pinehurst #2 a less complete test, and therefore less capable of identifying the "best" players, because one can always putt from off the green, and therefore avoid chipping for 72 holes if desired? Or is it okay that chipping simply isn't required in that week's examination? Could the same be asked of Harbour Town in not testing a player's ability in uphill, downhill, or sidehill golf? And most commonly these days, is it okay if driving accuracy just isn't an important part of that week's test? Or does that actually make it a worse test?
Last week, Brian Harman played amazingly, AND his skills were an excellent match for that particular course. As well as he played, he might not have won at Augusta. But I think that's good, as opposed to being an indictment of one or the other. My hunch is that it's better if some courses require different skill sets, or at least in different proportions. In tennis, the very greatest players are those who win on grass, clay, and hardcourt, where skills are valued in different proportions. I think having something similar in golf is good.
Of course, the silly reply is that based on identifying Tiger as the best player, Bay Hill and Torrey Pines must be incredible courses, while Riviera must be no good at all!
-
I was out on the course all week operating a boom mic for the World Feed. I witnessed from a couple of yards away approach shots from all the players.
Harmon stood out from the practice round onwards. While most players had me scurrying around in the semi rough on occasions looking for their ball Harmon’s was always in the middle of the fairway in an ideal position.
My job was to pick up the sound of the second shot which I could hear through my headphones. I heard many different kinds of sound but Harmon’s was constantly among the sweetest. I can’t remember him missing a green while I was covering him.
He was also one of the nicest most unassuming guys.
This was no fluke win.
If it made for a dull spectacle don’t blame the guy who won. Blame the rest of them!
-
Go check reply 20. Tom also called two other Champion Golfers of the Year flukes in that same post.
I actually only disagree with him on Retief, and would probably add a dozen or so more to the fluke list, including BH of course. ;) History has a lot of One Major winners, a lot more than you would think.
If you go back and re-read what I said, my point was that none of these guys are really "flukes" just because they weren't one of the favorites. Most golf fans would say Mickelson should have beaten Goosen, just like they think Arnie should have beaten Billy Casper at Olympic, so Olympic must not be a great course. [And Billy Casper had a lot greater career record than Retief Goosen, albeit with less depth of competition.]
I also said [on Friday] that if Harman won, it wouldn't be a fluke, either. He just outplayed everyone else, by a lot. It certainly helped him that the course wasn't set up to punish shorter hitters, as some major championship venues are, but do we think that's a bad thing? I love The Open precisely because the conditions allow for different players to show their strengths. This week, hitting fairways DID matter, especially when the rough got wet on Sunday.
-
Let's not forget that he was ranked 26th in the OWGR the week before The Open, some
Ben Curtis was playing in his first major in 2003 and was ranked 396th.
Hamilton was much higher, ranked 56th, and had been well into the top 50 earlier in the year.
Goosen was 44th in June of 2001
-
Jason
Can't you say the same thing most weeks about pinch points ? Admittedly I don't watch much apart from the majors but is it not true that most weeks they tend to bring the fairways in for the bombers but that more often than not one of them wins anyway. If that is the case then the question is why didn't that happen at Hoylake ?
Niall
Niall - my perception is that there are many courses that do not pinch at driver length. Augusta National is one example and the winner there is usually a big name and a long hitter. By contrast TPC Sawgrass, Colonial, Harbor Town are examples of fairways that do pinch and shorter hitters win more often at those venues than they do in general.
Added driver length is an advantage on any course but it diminishes when the opportunity to use driver is reduced.
I like the perspective in Matt’s post that courses should test different things so I do not believe it is a criticism at all. The Open Champion was a very worthy winner.
-
Horses for courses. Same often goes for golfers. Shinnecock Hills and The National Golf Links are both considered by many as 10s! If the top players in the world played both courses it is highly likely the leader boards might look very different. What does that say about great courses identifying the greatest players? Sometimes it happens and sometimes it doesn’t. These players are all amazing and we often forget there is the weather, the draw, rub of the green and old fashion luck that is very much a part of it. Inches can be the difference between a putt going in and missing, an unplayable lie vs no problem, OB vs IB, …the list goes on.
-
I think the more likely scenario is, great championships identify great players.
-
Tommy, please elaborate.
-
Great courses are sought after to host prestigious championships, and I think these tournaments create the most pressure and motivate the top players the most. If in fact great players win more often on great courses, maybe this is the reason why.
-
More like
"The best players and the noteworthy tournaments push the reputation of great courses to greater."...Why?... Because we understand the particular player's exceptional greatness and lay his or her record against where he or she has achieved it.
C'mon, isn't part of Riviera or Colonial's "greatness," or Oakland Hills lingering reputation, because of what Hogan did there? Haven't Woods and Mickelson record at Torrey elevated that course in the public mind?...
As good as WFW is to the player-connoisseur, in the public realm of whatever greatness is, isn't its reputation still trading on the memorable Jones win of 1929; on Casper's clever performance 30 years later, on the Massacre of 1974...Love's "rainbow"... Mickelson's collapse, BDC's empty destruction of it?...And not how cunning the fairway lines and angles work with the ground?
As singular and fine architecturally as Oakmont is, ANGC is, look at the preponderance of great performers/champions/ tournaments at both places...men's women's, invitational field or not, it usually turns out a significant champion, one whose record is established without those wins. Not always but many, many times...reliably, repeatedly.
And to my mind, while any championship winner is worthy of our praise as golfers, course fall out of "greatness" favor quickly when they don't produce sterling champions, or adopt controversies associated with their hosting... I think beyond whatever legit arch. critiques of Olympic there may be, the roster of its event champions has hurt its standing in the pantheon(s).
Of course Cypress and PV and Seminole and National and Chicago(es) are exceptional courses, but their greatness is disconnected from identity with players... to a gca purist that might sing, but to me, it feels more momentous and memorable when Nicklaus or Jones or Hogan or Woods or Daly (lol) made their bones in the very spot where I play my anonymous game.