Old Town Club-Winston Salem, NC

Old Town Club is a classic Perry Maxwell design. The course is generally underrated in the overall scheme of courses and is fantastic in many regards. The course certainly fits the mold of the American Parkland course, routed over a moderately rolling site with several streams meandering through the property. Overall, this course does a great job flowing through the round and is certainly a course to see.

Ranking

Variety of Design: The par 3's have outstanding variety. Ranging from 245 to 166 yards, it is difficult for courses to have more range than that. Par 4 variety is good, but not great, with all the holes having mid and short iron approaches. Par 5 variety is very good, being benefited by the course having only two. One is reachable by long players, but has a creek fronting the green making the play more difficult. The other is reachable in two by only a very few (my host mentioned that Bubba Watson had played a few weeks before and reached the green in two shots hitting Driver- Hybrid) and given the creek and pond features, amounts to more of a 3 shot hole. Directional variety is fair, 4 holes playing left, 7 holes playing right and 7 holes playing straight. 8 out of 10

Flow: Flow is solid. Easy holes mixed in with more difficult ones. Holes playing uphill and downhill. This building up to a solid finish to the round. 8 1/4 out of 10

Course Conditioning: Conditioning is better than most southern courses. Fairways were very good and the greens were as good as can be expected during summer. 8 1/4 out of 10

Ease of Walking: The course is rather hilly, but the green to tee transitions are short. 8 1/2 out of 10

Atmosphere: Solid. Very laid back, private club vibe. Quite nice. 6 out of 10

Total:  79 3/4 out of 100

Hole #1: Par 4, 423 yards

Solid opening hole. Hole plays downhill off the tee towards a creek, then back uphill to the green. The downhill nature of the tee shot will likely mandate the player hit less than driver from the tee. From the bottom of the hill, the player will have between 140 and 180 yards to the center of the green, depending if he played up the left or right off the tee. To the green the hole plays roughly 2 clubs uphill.

From the tee, the player will want to play directly towards the green in order to have a shorter approach. Anything starting on a line right of the fairway bunker will not find the fairway. The bunker does not seem to have any strategic value, the reason for it's being placed there is not known. 

This is the approach from just over the creek, perhaps 100 yards short of the green. Even though the shot is uphill, the front is gently sloped and will allow for a roll-up shot.

Hole #2: Par 3, 163 yards
Very solid downhill par 3 to a green that is significantly sloped and surrounded by bunkers. It is believed that this hole is either the basis for or based on the 7th hole at Augusta National. Very solid par 3.

Hole #4: Par 5, 526 yards
The first of two par 5's on the course has solid strategic value on every shot. From the tee, the player will be best served playing directly down the walking path. Anything left of that will require a mighty blow to not be blocked out; a tee shot of 320+ yards is needed to clear all the trees on the right. But the hole doglegs to the right, so obviously the closer to the right side of the fairway, without being blocked out, the better. Once in the fairway, the player might be facing a shot of 275 to 200 yards to reach the green. Certainly the players at the far ends of that range will have no doubt as to the proper play, but players having between 250 and 225 yards will be left with a major decision. A creek fronting the green makes the play to the green all carry. The is a very good, strategic, short par 5.

From the tee, the hole plays slightly uphill to the fairway. The best play for most players is directly up the walking path.

This is the view from the top of the hill, roughly 230 yards out. The green cannot be seen from here.

The green comes into better view at around 200 yards. The green provides a large target for the player. Certainly Maxwell knew this hole would be reachable by longer players.

Another view of the green from much closer. The green tilts from back to front and, while being open in the front, does not provide much of a roll up option given the fronting creek.

Hole #6: Par 3, 186 yards
Another solid par 3 that plays downhill. However, unlike #2, this hole allows the player to roll the ball onto the green from the right side. Solid hole with the entire back of the green open.

Hole #10: Par 4, 406 yards
This hole plays slightly uphill off the tee, then back downhill to the fairway. The uphill part does not hurt distance off the tee, it merely prevents the player from seeing the landing area. The blind nature hole also manages to obscure the 2 bunkers down the left side waiting to catch the longest of tee shots. The green is best approached from the left side, but as said, the longest hitters have to be mindful of the bunkers lying on that side.

The landing area is completely blind from the tee, as can be seen here.

From the left side of the fairway, the green is open to aerial or roll-up play.

Hole 11: Par 3, 216 yards
Another fantastic par 3. This one plays long and slightly downhill. A creek guards the right side of the green and a large bunkers guards the left. This hole can be played with an aerial shot or roll-up shot. This hole is fairly straight forward and can help or wreck a players round, depending on how he plays the hole.

Hole #16: Par 4, 367 yards
This is a fantastic par 4 that plays uphill off the tee, then down through a large valley before rising back to a green that is on the same level as the fairway. The longest players will want to play less than driver from the tee to avoid a severely uphill approach shot. The green is open in front, but the uphill slope short of the green will likely prevent the player from playing a roll-up shot.

From the tee, the hole plays uphill and possibly blind to the landing area. A shot to the top of the hill, perhaps 225 yards off the tee, will be ideal.

From the top of the hill, the player will be left with a straightforward shot of about 140 yards to the green.

Overall, this course is quite good. It has solid flow and quality variety. It's this writer's understanding that Bill Coore and Ben Crenshaw are currently undertaking a bunker renovation here and perhaps more than that. This will likely only help the course, perhaps getting it the respect it deserves. 7 out of 10

Should Major Tournaments Continue to be Played on Classic Golf Courses

Why do governing bodies continually insist on holding major championships and PGA Tour events on golf courses that were designed in the days of persimmon woods and balata balls?

This is not an issue of equipment. Equpiment has always evolved. As I have said elsewhere, each time the ball has changes, "golf" has seen a 20% or so increase in driving distance. Equipment is not "out of hand" as some might suggest. It is merely evolving as it always has.

No, the problem is we continue to want to see tournaments played at the same courses. Consider that The Olympic Club played at 6700 yards in 1955 when it first hosted the US Open. Given the 13% increase in driving distance from 1980 to 2012, I think it is more than reasonable to assume a 5% increase from 1955 to 1980 (the clubs, balls and other variables didn't change much). That is roughly a 20% increase in distance over that time period. Simple math, if we wish the course to play the same effective yardage today as it did in 1955...6700 x 1.20 = 8040 yards (um, wow, that's a lot longer than I thought it would be, anyway..) Even if using the 13% number, 6700 x 1.13 = 7571. Even if we use the 1998 yardage of 6797 it would need to be 7375 yards to play effectively the same; common sense tells us that 6797 in 1998 did not play the same as 6700 in 1955.

What about Pebble Beach? It played 6825 yards in 1982. Effectively that would be 7712 yards today, using the 1980 driving distance figures.

We simply stand now, holding dearly to the past and bastardizing courses because of that. I don't have the answers. I don't know what new courses could be added to the rotation for US Open venues. Obviously the USGA thinks Chambers Bay and Erin Hills have the 'stuff' needed to be US Open courses. From a total length standpoint, they play today effectively what courses played 50 or 60 years ago. Why not take the US Open to newer, longer, courses rather than altering old ones to the point of looking like an actress after surgery gone wrong?

The obvious catalyst for this thought is The Old Course. The golf world sits here watching the alterations being done in the name of making the course more suitable for modern tournament play. Would it not be better to admit that The Old Course might not be suited for the modern game, if we desire to protect par, that is? Terrible to say that, I know. I'll take heat for it, I'm sure. But at some point, that needs to be said aloud. If people don't care about pros shooting 25 under par in the Open Championship, go right ahead, keep playing The Open at The Old Course. Since 1990, the winning scores have been -18, -6, -19, -14, -16. The arguement about "well, it's different in the wind" simply doesn't hold water. Sure, the Friday afternoon conditions in 2010 were terrible, but before and after that, the conditions were quite calm.

So, basically we are left with 4 options.
One, we (meaning the golf public and governing bodies) can accept low scores at these events, meaning we can play Pebble Beach and The Old Course under reasonable turf and weather conditions and simply accept it when the winner shoots 15 under par or something.

Two, we can insist on majors being held at these classic venues, prompting the courses to go through, do wholesale renovations of the courses and restore the shots and shot values to the architect's original intent. This is not an option most places...Olympic Club so far as I can tell doesn't have enough land to lengthen the course another 800+ yards such that it plays the same effective length as it did in 1955 and I suspect most other clubs don't either.

Three, the tournament committee can alter the turf conditions significantly enough to make the course "difficult." This seems to be the USGA approach most years. Grow the rough up above the ankles, speed the greens up to ludicrous speed, make them hard as pool tables. Typically, however, these speeds either eliminate substantial portions of green space from having hole locations or dictate that the club alter the green in order to have hole locations, again going back to the renovation aspect.

Fourth, major championships can be taken to newer, longer courses better suited to the modern professional game. This might be unpopular, but it's the truth. Perhaps we should think more about this rather than botching up old designs.

But in the end, equipment is not the issue. Huge distance gains were made EVERY SINGLE TIME golf switched from one ball to another. Feathery to Gutta Perha to Haskell to Solid. There are standards in place to restrain that growth, to a certain degree. No, the issue is, we, the golfing public, insist on seeing tournaments held on these old golf courses. If we continue to insist on that, one of the four things above has to happen. Seems to me, options One and Four are the easiest, most cost effective, and best for the game.

Evolution of the Golf Ball and Driving Distance

Many people seem to think that the recent increases in the distance tour players hit the golf ball is something completely modern and something akin to the end of the golf world as it's currently known. But what do the statistics and facts show?

1. What was the distance increase when the game switched from wooden ball to feathery?
From THIS website, I have since found that feathery balls traveled roughly double the distance of wooden balls, 170-200 yards in perfect conditions
Based on THIS site, the feathery went 170 yards, if using a "modern club." Unsure if that means a then-modern club, or current-modern model. It likely means a then-modern club.

2. What was the distance increase when the game switched from feathery to gutta percha balls?
From the SAME site as above, the Gutta Percha traveled 200 yards under the same conditions described above.

3. What was the distance increase when the game switched from gutta percha to Haskell wound ball?
Just saw at THIS that going from the Gutta Percha to the Haskell wound ball yeilded 20 yards of improvement off the tee.
The SAME site said that this ball went 225-250 yards.

4. The Haskell wound ball was developed in 1898, from what I know, there was no great improvement from that ball to the Titleist Professional (what most consider to be the peak of wound ball development). The ProV1 was introduced in October 2000. What was the distance increase over that 102 year span?
If the numbers above of 225-250 yards are correct and given that the PGA Tour driving average for the top 25 players was 280.19 yards in 1997, that's a 55 yard increase using the low end above. The 1980 driving average for the top 25 was 268.66 yards. Stats don't go back any more than that. This increase is likely due, in part, to improving fitness measures and improvements in shaft and club technology.
5. The distance increase from Wound to the new Solid ball (Pro V1) type has been roughly 25 yards at the top end. Driving average for the top 25 went from 280.19 in 1997 to 304.66 in 2012

So, if all those numbers are believed...
Wood to Feathery= 50% increase
Feathery to Gutta Percha= 17.64% increase
Gutta Percha to Haskell= 12.5% to 25% increase
Haskell 1898 to Professional 1997= 24.5% increase.
Professional 1997 to Pro V1 2012= 8.5% increase.

Them dang statistics. Sky falling with the Pro V1? No, the statistics don't show that. It seems the distance increase at the top end on the Tour is actually not that high. I would assume those other figures are Tour figures as well, or at least elite players. It's kinda hard to get driving distance figures from all golfers.
BTW, it adds up to a +/- 13% increase in average driving distance from 1980 to 2012. Hardly a "sky is falling" amount.