Modern Course Architecture and the PGA Tour

Goynes42 Professional Champion
Go to Last Reply 156 Views 11 Replies 3 Likes
I'm just wanting to get you guys' take on this. It seems like every more modern course I play, and every TPC they play on tour, all exhibit the same design characteristics. The scenery may be different, but the hole design seems pretty much the same from course to course. You get a bunch of driver/7 iron par 4s, with long, wide, flat fairways that have bunkers on the outskirts, or one bunker inside a dogleg, etc. All the par 3s are 190-230. One of the par 5s is over 600. And one of the par 4s is reachable (or can be made reachable if they move it up a tee) for long hitters. Lather, rinse, repeat. So basically, the course designs beckon players to throw drivers out there as far as they can so they can have the shortest possible iron in...on every single hole. Don't get me wrong, they are gorgeous golf courses that are plenty tough for most golfers. It just seems like it's the same thing every week. I've played a couple TPCs myself and I've seen these types of holes in person...to me they really make for one-dimensional golf games. Hit your driver, hit your 7 iron. Hit your driver, hit your 8 iron. Hit your driver, hit your 7 iron. Etc., etc. Now think back to the US Open. Now, there's no need to make every course that tough, but wasn't it a little more interesting to watch the pros have to hit various clubs off the tees to find the right spots in the fairway? Some driver tee shots, some 3 woods, some irons. There were cross bunkers that actually cut into the fairways on a couple holes instead of framing them. You couldn't go out there with the big guns blazing all day. Like I said, it doesn't have to be that tough, but wouldn't it be nice to see them play some more well-set-up old courses (or new courses with classic hole designs) that cause a player to really think their way around the course instead of bashing the driver all day? They could still set up the winning score to be about 9 or 10 under, doesn't have to have 6-inch rough or anything. I just think it would be a more complete test of the pros' games and allow them to use some more creativity and shotmaking skills. That's my take...any thoughts?
HOGAN418 Professional Champion
# 1 6/24/2013 12:15:44 PM
It seems like ever since titanium, longer balls, and cavity back irons (aka 1990s)- all that the USGA did to make a course harder is make it longer, more rough, and burn the greens. But now, it's different. The players are better. The bar has been raised higher. Therefore, the courses have to be harder. Fairways narrower, rough higher, and greens more undulating. The courses have to keep up with the changes of the players and technology but that doesn't mean a longer course. There are other ways: dog legs, narrow the fairway at landing areas, etc. Marion showed alot of that.. maybe 1-2 holes were overboard but for the most part, a great test of golf.
ArizonaBlue Professional Champion
# 2 6/24/2013 2:28:30 PM
I would like to see more courses set up somewhere between a regular tour event and Merion. The emphasis should be on putting the ball in the fairway instead of bomb-and-chip ... more course management. I'd rather see a final score of no more than 10 under par for the winner. I know that people like birdie-fests ... so does TV ... but it would be more of a true test of a golfer if he had to put it in the fairway because the rough was not the place to be.
bill321 Professional Champion
# 3 6/24/2013 3:08:10 PM
This is a "good golfer's" question. All I'm thinking about is making contact and not ripping a hunk of sod behind the ball. But I will enjoy observing this conversation nonetheless.
Tim Conroy Professional Champion
# 4 6/24/2013 5:56:25 PM
This is a pretty interesting topic. Is there any correlation to the years the courses are created. Are older courses being lengthened and reimagined into these templates? I wonder if there is influenced by equipment manufactiers touting the newest driver. If the driver rarely comes out of the bag what good is the marketing? Could it be spoiled pro refusing to play anything eles? It seems like may pros want to shoot -20 for a weekend, and not be challenged. As these tournaments always bring out complaints of the courses being too hard. So these designes are what the players want to play.
LyinLewis Legend
# 5 6/24/2013 6:36:10 PM
Its funny you mention it. I have a buddy who used to play in tour back in the days of Nicklaus and he mentioned that every course in Florida is exactly the same. Dogleg left or right with water on one side or the other, deep bunkers, big greens etc etc. I never really thought of it that way. Golf course architecture gets boring until you play a Crenshaw or Kidd course or an old Ross or MacKenize. I suppose that is why I prefer links courses.
JayPet Legend
# 6 6/24/2013 7:43:45 PM
Tim, good observation and it really shows you why the "named" golf architects have such a good rep. I played Pinehurst for the first time and played #1 knew why Ross was a genius. He took the contours of some amazing NC sand hills and turned them into a masterpiece. #2 was the best classic course I have ever seen. Technology has killed everything and that is why Crenshaw and Doak and Nicklaus are setting the bar again.
Don Freeman Professional Champion
# 7 6/24/2013 9:13:59 PM
40 years ago I designed a couple of courses during history class while in high school. Needless to say, I barely passed history class. But I bet no one here could ever shoot par on my designs. lol.
Goynes42 Professional Champion
# 8 6/24/2013 9:19:33 PM
This is a pretty interesting topic. Is there any correlation to the years the courses are created. Are older courses being lengthened and reimagined into these templates? I wonder if there is influenced by equipment manufactiers touting the newest driver. If the driver rarely comes out of the bag what good is the marketing? Could it be spoiled pro refusing to play anything eles? It seems like may pros want to shoot -20 for a weekend, and not be challenged. As these tournaments always bring out complaints of the courses being too hard. So these designes are what the players want to play. I think you hit on some pretty important points Tim. The PGA Tour is a business, and they have to make money. They make money off of the whole "these guys are good" campaign...people buy tickets to events to watch "these guys" rip golf courses apart, so it is probably a financial benefit to them to have courses set up relatively easy, and keep them similar across the country. They make money off of equipment manufacturers who set up tents and advertisements at Tour stops, so it's probably a financial benefit to them to gear the courses towards the long ball so patrons can ooh and aah over how far Jason Day hits the new Taylormade C3PO driver. Who cares WHERE it goes as long as it goes a long way, right? And I think you're right about the players. There are ALWAYS a bunch of tards every year at the US Open saying "this is unfair." What they really mean is "I can't shoot 25 under par." So a course is only "fair" to them if they can slaughter it...at least that's what I gather. Like I said, there's no need for all the courses all year to be set up like a US Open, but they really should play some shorter, tighter, shotmaker courses on Tour. Set the courses up tough, grow the rough a bit, and get players hitting SHOTS to the fairway instead of bashing the driver all day. The modern game just seems so one-dimensional. If you can hit it a long way and hit your wedges well and putt great, here's your PGA Tour card. That's a gross exaggeration of course, but you get my point. I just wish there were more variety in the courses on Tour. There needs to be more emphasis put on shot PLACEMENT off the tee rather than sheer distance. There are PLENTY of older, shorter tracks in the country that could easily be set up tough enough to test the world's best and cause them to use more imagination off the tee. We saw at Merion what happens when an architect uses thoughtful bunkering, natural contours, tricky sight lines and tough green complexes (let alone how tough the rough was...I saw tons of guys make bogeys from the fairway). That course is 100 years old and still gave them fits.
Mark Simmons Legend
# 9 6/24/2013 10:28:07 PM
Yes it did make the U.S. Open more interesting. As to course design, while there have certainly been changes, it seems the 'change' that is most significant is the PGA Tour selecting courses with the characteristics you describe.
cogolfer1 LowIndex
# 10 6/24/2013 10:39:00 PM
Its funny you mention it. I have a buddy who used to play in tour back in the days of Nicklaus and he mentioned that every course in Florida is exactly the same. Dogleg left or right with water on one side or the other, deep bunkers, big greens etc etc. I never really thought of it that way. Golf course architecture gets boring until you play a Crenshaw or Kidd course or an old Ross or MacKenize. I suppose that is why I prefer links courses. For that first point about courses in Florida, that's why I love Innisbrook so much. That course looks NOTHING like PGA National, Doral, Bay Hill, TPC Sawgrass, or any course in Florida. The Copperhead course might have been designed on the only portion of Florida that isn't flat. As for your second point, yep, links golf is how golf was meant to be played, and should be played. Most parkland courses (especially those on the PGA Tour) just aren't designed right in my opinion. As others have said, there should be a much bigger premium on hitting the ball in the fairway than what's made out to be. Unless guys hit Bubba Watson or Phil Mickelson type shots off the pine straw at Augusta, you shouldn't be getting as close to the hole as pros are. Again, that's just my mentality. There's a reason why it's called rough. It's supposed to make it rougher to get the ball in the hole in a less number of shots. There's also a reason why a fairway is called a fairway. You have a fairer shot at getting the ball closer to the hole on your next shot.
Golfer Professional Champion
# 11 6/26/2013 3:55:02 PM
The number one concern for the PGA Tour in selecting or constructing a course is how to maximize the spectacle, the crowd and thereby the revenue they will earn at the tournament. The way to do that is to have the most spectators, tents and concessions possible. This requires wide fairways and greens to create clear sight lines for the fans and for TV cameras. It will be difficult for the USGA to go back to Merion in the foreseeable future because they could fit only 25,000 paying customers per day and so few concessions. The opposite of Merion will be Chambers Bay in 2015. They estimate to be able to fit 45,000 fans per day and more than double the concessions and corporate tents. Professional sports are about the profession, ie the money, and not the sports. You only need the veneer of sport, so that the money is not quite so vulgar. So that is why TPC courses are perfectly suited to professional golf.

Goynes42

Professional Champion

Go to Last Reply

156 Views 11 Replies 3 Likes

I'm just wanting to get you guys' take on this.

It seems like every more modern course I play, and every TPC they play on tour, all exhibit the same design characteristics. The scenery may be different, but the hole design seems pretty much the same from course to course. You get a bunch of driver/7 iron par 4s, with long, wide, flat fairways that have bunkers on the outskirts, or one bunker inside a dogleg, etc. All the par 3s are 190-230. One of the par 5s is over 600. And one of the par 4s is reachable (or can be made reachable if they move it up a tee) for long hitters. Lather, rinse, repeat.

So basically, the course designs beckon players to throw drivers out there as far as they can so they can have the shortest possible iron in...on every single hole. Don't get me wrong, they are gorgeous golf courses that are plenty tough for most golfers. It just seems like it's the same thing every week. I've played a couple TPCs myself and I've seen these types of holes in person...to me they really make for one-dimensional golf games. Hit your driver, hit your 7 iron. Hit your driver, hit your 8 iron. Hit your driver, hit your 7 iron. Etc., etc.

Now think back to the US Open. Now, there's no need to make every course that tough, but wasn't it a little more interesting to watch the pros have to hit various clubs off the tees to find the right spots in the fairway? Some driver tee shots, some 3 woods, some irons. There were cross bunkers that actually cut into the fairways on a couple holes instead of framing them. You couldn't go out there with the big guns blazing all day.

Like I said, it doesn't have to be that tough, but wouldn't it be nice to see them play some more well-set-up old courses (or new courses with classic hole designs) that cause a player to really think their way around the course instead of bashing the driver all day? They could still set up the winning score to be about 9 or 10 under, doesn't have to have 6-inch rough or anything. I just think it would be a more complete test of the pros' games and allow them to use some more creativity and shotmaking skills.

That's my take...any thoughts?

HOGAN418

Professional Champion

# 1 6/24/2013 12:15:44 PM

It seems like ever since titanium, longer balls, and cavity back irons (aka 1990s)- all that the USGA did to make a course harder is make it longer, more rough, and burn the greens. But now, it's different. The players are better. The bar has been raised higher. Therefore, the courses have to be harder. Fairways narrower, rough higher, and greens more undulating. The courses have to keep up with the changes of the players and technology but that doesn't mean a longer course. There are other ways: dog legs, narrow the fairway at landing areas, etc. Marion showed alot of that.. maybe 1-2 holes were overboard but for the most part, a great test of golf.

ArizonaBlue

Professional Champion

# 2 6/24/2013 2:28:30 PM

I would like to see more courses set up somewhere between a regular tour event and Merion. The emphasis should be on putting the ball in the fairway instead of bomb-and-chip ... more course management. I'd rather see a final score of no more than 10 under par for the winner. I know that people like birdie-fests ... so does TV ... but it would be more of a true test of a golfer if he had to put it in the fairway because the rough was not the place to be.

bill321

Professional Champion

# 3 6/24/2013 3:08:10 PM

This is a "good golfer's" question. All I'm thinking about is making contact and not ripping a hunk of sod behind the ball. But I will enjoy observing this conversation nonetheless.

Tim Conroy

Professional Champion

# 4 6/24/2013 5:56:25 PM

This is a pretty interesting topic. Is there any correlation to the years the courses are created. Are older courses being lengthened and reimagined into these templates? I wonder if there is influenced by equipment manufactiers touting the newest driver. If the driver rarely comes out of the bag what good is the marketing?

Could it be spoiled pro refusing to play anything eles? It seems like may pros want to shoot -20 for a weekend, and not be challenged. As these tournaments always bring out complaints of the courses being too hard. So these designes are what the players want to play.

LyinLewis

Legend

# 5 6/24/2013 6:36:10 PM

Its funny you mention it. I have a buddy who used to play in tour back in the days of Nicklaus and he mentioned that every course in Florida is exactly the same. Dogleg left or right with water on one side or the other, deep bunkers, big greens etc etc. I never really thought of it that way.

Golf course architecture gets boring until you play a Crenshaw or Kidd course or an old Ross or MacKenize. I suppose that is why I prefer links courses.

JayPet

Legend

# 6 6/24/2013 7:43:45 PM

Tim, good observation and it really shows you why the "named" golf architects have such a good rep. I played Pinehurst for the first time and played #1 knew why Ross was a genius. He took the contours of some amazing NC sand hills and turned them into a masterpiece. #2 was the best classic course I have ever seen. Technology has killed everything and that is why Crenshaw and Doak and Nicklaus are setting the bar again.

Don Freeman

Professional Champion

# 7 6/24/2013 9:13:59 PM

40 years ago I designed a couple of courses during history class while in high school. Needless to say, I barely passed history class. But I bet no one here could ever shoot par on my designs. lol.

Goynes42

Professional Champion

# 8 6/24/2013 9:19:33 PM

This is a pretty interesting topic. Is there any correlation to the years the courses are created. Are older courses being lengthened and reimagined into these templates? I wonder if there is influenced by equipment manufactiers touting the newest driver. If the driver rarely comes out of the bag what good is the marketing?

Could it be spoiled pro refusing to play anything eles? It seems like may pros want to shoot -20 for a weekend, and not be challenged. As these tournaments always bring out complaints of the courses being too hard. So these designes are what the players want to play.

I think you hit on some pretty important points Tim. The PGA Tour is a business, and they have to make money. They make money off of the whole "these guys are good" campaign...people buy tickets to events to watch "these guys" rip golf courses apart, so it is probably a financial benefit to them to have courses set up relatively easy, and keep them similar across the country. They make money off of equipment manufacturers who set up tents and advertisements at Tour stops, so it's probably a financial benefit to them to gear the courses towards the long ball so patrons can ooh and aah over how far Jason Day hits the new Taylormade C3PO driver. Who cares WHERE it goes as long as it goes a long way, right?

And I think you're right about the players. There are ALWAYS a bunch of tards every year at the US Open saying "this is unfair." What they really mean is "I can't shoot 25 under par." So a course is only "fair" to them if they can slaughter it...at least that's what I gather.

Like I said, there's no need for all the courses all year to be set up like a US Open, but they really should play some shorter, tighter, shotmaker courses on Tour. Set the courses up tough, grow the rough a bit, and get players hitting SHOTS to the fairway instead of bashing the driver all day. The modern game just seems so one-dimensional. If you can hit it a long way and hit your wedges well and putt great, here's your PGA Tour card. That's a gross exaggeration of course, but you get my point.

I just wish there were more variety in the courses on Tour. There needs to be more emphasis put on shot PLACEMENT off the tee rather than sheer distance. There are PLENTY of older, shorter tracks in the country that could easily be set up tough enough to test the world's best and cause them to use more imagination off the tee. We saw at Merion what happens when an architect uses thoughtful bunkering, natural contours, tricky sight lines and tough green complexes (let alone how tough the rough was...I saw tons of guys make bogeys from the fairway). That course is 100 years old and still gave them fits.

Mark Simmons

Legend

# 9 6/24/2013 10:28:07 PM

Yes it did make the U.S. Open more interesting. As to course design, while there have certainly been changes, it seems the 'change' that is most significant is the PGA Tour selecting courses with the characteristics you describe.

cogolfer1

LowIndex

# 10 6/24/2013 10:39:00 PM

Its funny you mention it. I have a buddy who used to play in tour back in the days of Nicklaus and he mentioned that every course in Florida is exactly the same. Dogleg left or right with water on one side or the other, deep bunkers, big greens etc etc. I never really thought of it that way.

Golf course architecture gets boring until you play a Crenshaw or Kidd course or an old Ross or MacKenize. I suppose that is why I prefer links courses.

For that first point about courses in Florida, that's why I love Innisbrook so much. That course looks NOTHING like PGA National, Doral, Bay Hill, TPC Sawgrass, or any course in Florida. The Copperhead course might have been designed on the only portion of Florida that isn't flat.

As for your second point, yep, links golf is how golf was meant to be played, and should be played. Most parkland courses (especially those on the PGA Tour) just aren't designed right in my opinion. As others have said, there should be a much bigger premium on hitting the ball in the fairway than what's made out to be. Unless guys hit Bubba Watson or Phil Mickelson type shots off the pine straw at Augusta, you shouldn't be getting as close to the hole as pros are. Again, that's just my mentality. There's a reason why it's called rough. It's supposed to make it rougher to get the ball in the hole in a less number of shots. There's also a reason why a fairway is called a fairway. You have a fairer shot at getting the ball closer to the hole on your next shot.

Golfer

Professional Champion

# 11 6/26/2013 3:55:02 PM

The number one concern for the PGA Tour in selecting or constructing a course is how to maximize the spectacle, the crowd and thereby the revenue they will earn at the tournament. The way to do that is to have the most spectators, tents and concessions possible.

This requires wide fairways and greens to create clear sight lines for the fans and for TV cameras. It will be difficult for the USGA to go back to Merion in the foreseeable future because they could fit only 25,000 paying customers per day and so few concessions. The opposite of Merion will be Chambers Bay in 2015. They estimate to be able to fit 45,000 fans per day and more than double the concessions and corporate tents.

Professional sports are about the profession, ie the money, and not the sports. You only need the veneer of sport, so that the money is not quite so vulgar.

So that is why TPC courses are perfectly suited to professional golf.

COMMUNITY