Here's the video of 11-year-old Taylor Crozier making a hole-in-one with the very first shot ever hit on Tiger's new Bluejack National Course... and Tiger's reaction afterward. This happened on Wednesday but I just found the video today.
Some kids have all the luck.
Showing posts with label course designers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label course designers. Show all posts
Friday, March 4, 2016
Sunday, June 15, 2014
The Intent of the Architect
"The intent of the architect" is a phrase we've heard often this week. There's been a great deal of talk about how Coore & Crenshaw restored Pinehurst #2 to the way original architect Donald Ross intended it to play. I don't question that at all, especially since much of the restoration was done using actual aerial photographs of the course taken during its heyday during the 1940s.
However, I have to question whether the USGA has really kept that intent in mind -- especially after watching the 3rd round of the US Open on Saturday. The players are saying all the right things, but I have a friend who used to be a Tour caddie and still talks to Tour caddies. He tells me the players are, shall we say, "less satisfied" with the setup than they're saying in public.
Am I saying the course setup is unfair? No... but I'm not so certain this is a question of being fair or unfair.
It's a question of intent.
You see, the USGA has "intent" of its own. It has its own ideas about what kind of conditions are necessary to create a suitable test of golf, a test adequate to determine our national champion. Traditionally, their intent is to create a course where par is the winning score -- they can say it isn't, but we all know better because we see how the course setups change when someone "goes too low" -- and, to that end, they typically incorporate the following methodology:
But the architect employs a methodology of his own in order to achieve HIS intent. During the TV coverage we've been shown the sign Donald Ross erected on the first hole of Pinehurst #2; no doubt you've seen it:
In this case, I think Donald Ross lost out. I'll give the USGA credit for making some concessions to Ross in this championship... but ultimately, they ignored his intent in favor of their own. As a result, we haven't seen Pinehurst play as Ross desired.
The USGA accepted some of the Ross methodology:
It's on the greens that the USGA made a mockery of Donald Ross. Martin Kaymer told reporters that any shot within 25-30 feet of the pin was a good shot, and that the pin on 18 was the only one he could attack. Ironically, Phil Mickelson said basically the same thing:
It's one thing if a well-struck shot has to be stopped somewhere near the center of the green in order to hold that green. It's one thing if a well-struck shot can be stopped near a pin in the middle of the green but not near a pin on the edges of the green. It's one thing if you place the pins near the edges of the greens where, if a putt from the center of the green is struck too hard, the ball can roll off the green.
But I'm pretty sure that having 25-30 foot putts on almost every green, even if the pin is well away from the edges of the green, does NOT qualify as the "consistent putting" Ross claimed his course called for. And I'm even more sure that having to land the ball in an area the size of a kitchen table just to get that ridiculously long putt isn't what Ross had in mind when he called for "accurate iron play."
This is a case of the USGA ignoring the obvious design of the golf course in order to "protect par." (Don't even get me started on that rant!) Stimping those greens at anything above 10-11 is criminal. And making it impossible to attack pins -- by forcing players to play away from most holes just so they can hold the green -- is not what I call "competition." Why don't we just penalize players for making birdies and be done with it?
Yeah, I know everybody had to play the same course; that's why I'm not saying the setup was unfair. As far as I'm concerned, whether Pinehurst #2 was a "fair" test on Saturday is a question for someone else to debate. But I'm pretty sure that the setup of the greens was nowhere near the "intent of the architect."
The photo came from the Pinehurst #2 page at golfclubatlas.com.
However, I have to question whether the USGA has really kept that intent in mind -- especially after watching the 3rd round of the US Open on Saturday. The players are saying all the right things, but I have a friend who used to be a Tour caddie and still talks to Tour caddies. He tells me the players are, shall we say, "less satisfied" with the setup than they're saying in public.
Am I saying the course setup is unfair? No... but I'm not so certain this is a question of being fair or unfair.
It's a question of intent.
You see, the USGA has "intent" of its own. It has its own ideas about what kind of conditions are necessary to create a suitable test of golf, a test adequate to determine our national champion. Traditionally, their intent is to create a course where par is the winning score -- they can say it isn't, but we all know better because we see how the course setups change when someone "goes too low" -- and, to that end, they typically incorporate the following methodology:
- Fast but narrow fairways (to test driving accuracy)
- Hard greens that are extremely fast (hard, to test the precision of approach and short game shots; and fast, to test the player's putting touch)
- Extremely thick rough around greens and fairways (to create a substantial penalty if a target is missed)
- Prominent hazards (to intimidate players, thus testing their nerve)
But the architect employs a methodology of his own in order to achieve HIS intent. During the TV coverage we've been shown the sign Donald Ross erected on the first hole of Pinehurst #2; no doubt you've seen it:
I sincerely believe this course to be the fairest test of championship golf that I have ever designed. It is obviously the function of the championship course to present the competitors with a variety of problems that will test every type of shot which a golfer of championship quality should be qualified to play. Thus, it should call for long and accurate tee shots, accurate iron play, precise handling of the short game and, finally, consistent putting.At first glance, Ross and the USGA appear to share the same intent. The big question, however, is what happens when the USGA's methodology interferes with the architect's methodology? What happens when intents collide?
In this case, I think Donald Ross lost out. I'll give the USGA credit for making some concessions to Ross in this championship... but ultimately, they ignored his intent in favor of their own. As a result, we haven't seen Pinehurst play as Ross desired.
The USGA accepted some of the Ross methodology:
- Wider fairways with hard edges meant that wilder drives got worse lies and worse angles into the greens. ("...it should call for long and accurate tee shots...")
- The "stuff" that took the place of the thick rough is a concession to Ross, who clearly believed the penalty for a missed fairway at Pinehurst shouldn't be a hack out but rather a less-than-desirable lie. Players can still advance the ball but may not be able to play the shot they really wanted... or needed. ("...accurate iron play...")
- The hard ground surrounding the greens leaves players with difficult recovery shots ("...precise handling of the short game...")
It's on the greens that the USGA made a mockery of Donald Ross. Martin Kaymer told reporters that any shot within 25-30 feet of the pin was a good shot, and that the pin on 18 was the only one he could attack. Ironically, Phil Mickelson said basically the same thing:
“Pins were very difficult. The only birdie pin I thought was 18. But the greens were receptive; it wasn't unfair,” Mickelson said. “I kept waiting. Well, I can't get to this one, I'll get to maybe the next hole. Can't get to this one, I'll get to the next hole. Finally, we got to the 18th and I'm like, ‘I can get to the pin.’”Does anyone truly believe that such shenanigans were the intent of Donald Ross? At the time Ross designed Pinehurst #2, stimp speeds of 8-9 were common so his greens were designed with that in mind. The greens were contoured so that well-struck approach shots would stay somewhat near the hole while poorly-struck shots would ricochet off.
It's one thing if a well-struck shot has to be stopped somewhere near the center of the green in order to hold that green. It's one thing if a well-struck shot can be stopped near a pin in the middle of the green but not near a pin on the edges of the green. It's one thing if you place the pins near the edges of the greens where, if a putt from the center of the green is struck too hard, the ball can roll off the green.
But I'm pretty sure that having 25-30 foot putts on almost every green, even if the pin is well away from the edges of the green, does NOT qualify as the "consistent putting" Ross claimed his course called for. And I'm even more sure that having to land the ball in an area the size of a kitchen table just to get that ridiculously long putt isn't what Ross had in mind when he called for "accurate iron play."
This is a case of the USGA ignoring the obvious design of the golf course in order to "protect par." (Don't even get me started on that rant!) Stimping those greens at anything above 10-11 is criminal. And making it impossible to attack pins -- by forcing players to play away from most holes just so they can hold the green -- is not what I call "competition." Why don't we just penalize players for making birdies and be done with it?
Yeah, I know everybody had to play the same course; that's why I'm not saying the setup was unfair. As far as I'm concerned, whether Pinehurst #2 was a "fair" test on Saturday is a question for someone else to debate. But I'm pretty sure that the setup of the greens was nowhere near the "intent of the architect."
The photo came from the Pinehurst #2 page at golfclubatlas.com.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
What Do Fans Really Want?
It happens on GC every year at this time -- Brandell Chamblee and Frank Nobilo have a "debate" about whether the 17th at TPC Sawgrass is a good hole or not. Chamblee hates it and Nobilo thinks it's what the fans want -- namely, the chance to watch the pros crash and burn. (In the following picture from www.tpc.com, the tee is in the upper left corner.)
What do the fans really want? I have my own opinion.
The "important" people in the game tend to talk about tradition and character and all those niceties that come up in any discussion of golf. But I think most of them are missing something important about sport in general... and if you want golf to compete for the hearts and minds of fans the same way football, soccer, baseball, and basketball do, you need to take this into account.
In any sport there's a hardcore group of fans who revel in the history of the game. But the vast part of the fanbase -- call them the "unwashed masses" if you must -- have a far more basic desire. They want a party.
There's a reason the Scottsdale event can compete with SuperBowl Sunday. The raucous stadium set up around the 16th hole, with fans screaming the way they do at any other sports stadium, is the big draw. It sells out on SuperBowl Sunday every single year.
Brandell contrasted the reverence of the Masters to the "crash and burn" mentality of the 17th at the TPC. But I would remind everybody that "reverence" didn't stop fans and players alike from lamenting the lack of roars on Sunday's back 9 when the Masters course was toughened up... or from applauding when Augusta National changed their setup and brought the roars back.
I don't doubt that some golf fans believe a nice quiet tournament, complete with gentle golf claps, is the proper and traditional way to view golf. I don't doubt that some pros want the whole course so quiet that they can hear a pin drop while they spend 5+ hours crawling around the course, meditating before they hit each shot. I'm sure all of the powers-that-be want to be seen as paragons of virtue in a sport of character... even though we all know players are getting fined and disciplined despite the Tour's refusal to admit it ever happens.
But if they really want to see the game become popular with a huge group of fans, I have two words for them: RYDER CUP. That's the "reverence" most fans want. And whatever you think of the 17th at Sawgrass, remember that Pete Dye at least recognized that basic truth.
As for me, I am one of those who will be watching the 17th with great enthusiasm -- especially on Sunday afternoon -- and proud of it. I am rabble, hear me roar. ;-)
What do the fans really want? I have my own opinion.
The "important" people in the game tend to talk about tradition and character and all those niceties that come up in any discussion of golf. But I think most of them are missing something important about sport in general... and if you want golf to compete for the hearts and minds of fans the same way football, soccer, baseball, and basketball do, you need to take this into account.
In any sport there's a hardcore group of fans who revel in the history of the game. But the vast part of the fanbase -- call them the "unwashed masses" if you must -- have a far more basic desire. They want a party.
There's a reason the Scottsdale event can compete with SuperBowl Sunday. The raucous stadium set up around the 16th hole, with fans screaming the way they do at any other sports stadium, is the big draw. It sells out on SuperBowl Sunday every single year.
Brandell contrasted the reverence of the Masters to the "crash and burn" mentality of the 17th at the TPC. But I would remind everybody that "reverence" didn't stop fans and players alike from lamenting the lack of roars on Sunday's back 9 when the Masters course was toughened up... or from applauding when Augusta National changed their setup and brought the roars back.
I don't doubt that some golf fans believe a nice quiet tournament, complete with gentle golf claps, is the proper and traditional way to view golf. I don't doubt that some pros want the whole course so quiet that they can hear a pin drop while they spend 5+ hours crawling around the course, meditating before they hit each shot. I'm sure all of the powers-that-be want to be seen as paragons of virtue in a sport of character... even though we all know players are getting fined and disciplined despite the Tour's refusal to admit it ever happens.
But if they really want to see the game become popular with a huge group of fans, I have two words for them: RYDER CUP. That's the "reverence" most fans want. And whatever you think of the 17th at Sawgrass, remember that Pete Dye at least recognized that basic truth.
As for me, I am one of those who will be watching the 17th with great enthusiasm -- especially on Sunday afternoon -- and proud of it. I am rabble, hear me roar. ;-)
Saturday, March 3, 2012
What Does Jack Know...
...that other course architects don't?
I mean, PGA National is a par-70 course and a mere 7158 yards long. (That info came from the course info page.) This week several players have shot 64 -- the course record coming into this week -- and 65. On Friday Brian Harmon set a new course record of 61. This doesn't sound like it should be particularly challenging to PGA Tour players, does it?
And yet the leaders are tied at 8-under... and one of them, Tom Gillis, has a 64.
Again I ask: What does Jack know that other course architects don't?
In a world where golf courses get longer and longer because of improved equipment and more athletic players, Jack still manages to give the best players in the world all they can handle on shorter courses. Before we trash Tiger's game because he's only 1-under, let's remember that he's tied with Lee Westwood, who is arguably playing the 2nd-best of anybody in the world right now. Even Rory McIlroy is only 7-under... and let's not forget last year when he went +6 in the Bear Trap during the 2nd round.
ESPN has an interesting post on their golf blog with lots of stats about the Bear Trap -- holes 15, 16 & 17. Here are a few of the more interesting stats they ran (these are quotes taken from the post):
Another short course that challenges the pros is Harbour Town Golf Links, the course where the RBC Heritage is played. A par-71 course, this one only 7101 yards long. (Again, info taken from the PGA Tour's course info page.) I looked to see who designed it, and the page says it was Pete Dye... in consultation with Jack Nicklaus.
Yet again I ask: What does Jack know that other course architects don't?
Perhaps Jack should consider opening a golf course design school for those other poor architects who just can't seem to design a challenging course that's smaller than Panama.
The photo came from Stephanie Wei's blog Wei Over Par.
I mean, PGA National is a par-70 course and a mere 7158 yards long. (That info came from the course info page.) This week several players have shot 64 -- the course record coming into this week -- and 65. On Friday Brian Harmon set a new course record of 61. This doesn't sound like it should be particularly challenging to PGA Tour players, does it?
And yet the leaders are tied at 8-under... and one of them, Tom Gillis, has a 64.
Again I ask: What does Jack know that other course architects don't?
In a world where golf courses get longer and longer because of improved equipment and more athletic players, Jack still manages to give the best players in the world all they can handle on shorter courses. Before we trash Tiger's game because he's only 1-under, let's remember that he's tied with Lee Westwood, who is arguably playing the 2nd-best of anybody in the world right now. Even Rory McIlroy is only 7-under... and let's not forget last year when he went +6 in the Bear Trap during the 2nd round.
ESPN has an interesting post on their golf blog with lots of stats about the Bear Trap -- holes 15, 16 & 17. Here are a few of the more interesting stats they ran (these are quotes taken from the post):
- The PGA National Champion Course was home to 309 double-bogeys a year ago. That was the most on the PGA Tour in 2011.
- When you exclude the major championships, The Honda Classic has played as the toughest course on the PGA Tour each of the past two years. Last year, the field averaged a score of more than 2½ shots above par.
- If a player is going to make some headway, he'll need to do it early. Holes 1 through 4 had a combined birdie or better percentage of 20.7. For the rest of the course, that number was just 11.4. And for The Bear Trap by itself? Eight percent.
Another short course that challenges the pros is Harbour Town Golf Links, the course where the RBC Heritage is played. A par-71 course, this one only 7101 yards long. (Again, info taken from the PGA Tour's course info page.) I looked to see who designed it, and the page says it was Pete Dye... in consultation with Jack Nicklaus.
Yet again I ask: What does Jack know that other course architects don't?
Perhaps Jack should consider opening a golf course design school for those other poor architects who just can't seem to design a challenging course that's smaller than Panama.
The photo came from Stephanie Wei's blog Wei Over Par.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Is East Lake Really That Hard?
I don't get this. I don't get this at all.
Out of the 30 players who made it to the Tour Championship, only 17 are under par. Par is just 70 -- granted, that only gives these guys two par-5s to beat up -- but one of those is less than 500 yards long! And the course itself is listed on the Tour's website at a mere 7154 yards long. Have I missed something here?
Aren't these the guys that modern course designers claim need 7500+ yards just to make them break a sweat?
The leaders are averaging 3-under each day. Only 4 players average better than 2-under. And only 10 players average better than 1-under.
I repeat... Am I missing something here?
Maybe East Lake has gotten into their heads. Maybe the $10 million has gotten into their heads. Maybe they've gotten into their own heads. (I like Bubba Watson a lot, but he certainly acted like he did. How else do you follow a 64 with a 79?)
But I have a thought...
Is it possible that modern golf course designers have forgotten what really makes a course challenging? No doubt Rees Jones is being cursed for tricking East Lake up -- he seems to take the brunt of criticism lately -- but I understand that Jones merely restored the original course design.
A design from the mind of Donald Ross.
I'm a bit familiar with Ross. He designed Sedgefield Country Club in Greensboro (maybe 40 minutes from here) where they play the Wyndham Championship, and he designed Pinehurst #2 (maybe 2 hours from here) where the Tour plays a little major golf on occasion. ;-) Both of these are in the 7100-7300 yard range. And both are considered a bit of a challenge.
Maybe modern course designers should study these "short" Ross courses in more detail, maybe even try incorporating some of his design traits into their modern courses. And maybe the PGA Tour should consider including more Ross courses in their schedule.
After all, if East Lake is that hard, maybe the Tour's TPC overly-long designs are too easy to challenge the best players in the world.
Out of the 30 players who made it to the Tour Championship, only 17 are under par. Par is just 70 -- granted, that only gives these guys two par-5s to beat up -- but one of those is less than 500 yards long! And the course itself is listed on the Tour's website at a mere 7154 yards long. Have I missed something here?
Aren't these the guys that modern course designers claim need 7500+ yards just to make them break a sweat?
The leaders are averaging 3-under each day. Only 4 players average better than 2-under. And only 10 players average better than 1-under.
I repeat... Am I missing something here?
Maybe East Lake has gotten into their heads. Maybe the $10 million has gotten into their heads. Maybe they've gotten into their own heads. (I like Bubba Watson a lot, but he certainly acted like he did. How else do you follow a 64 with a 79?)
But I have a thought...
Is it possible that modern golf course designers have forgotten what really makes a course challenging? No doubt Rees Jones is being cursed for tricking East Lake up -- he seems to take the brunt of criticism lately -- but I understand that Jones merely restored the original course design.
A design from the mind of Donald Ross.
I'm a bit familiar with Ross. He designed Sedgefield Country Club in Greensboro (maybe 40 minutes from here) where they play the Wyndham Championship, and he designed Pinehurst #2 (maybe 2 hours from here) where the Tour plays a little major golf on occasion. ;-) Both of these are in the 7100-7300 yard range. And both are considered a bit of a challenge.
Maybe modern course designers should study these "short" Ross courses in more detail, maybe even try incorporating some of his design traits into their modern courses. And maybe the PGA Tour should consider including more Ross courses in their schedule.
After all, if East Lake is that hard, maybe the Tour's TPC overly-long designs are too easy to challenge the best players in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)