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.
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.
I don't think "One" is as good an option as you think, at least for courses that are more than the sum of their greens. Given today's players abilities to hit shots "over" the areas where the original intent placed challenges, or to "aim for bunkers," the modern pro can simply avoid dealing with the original challenges and strategies of these classic layouts. This is what is sometimes called the John Daly problem, as John Daly's 1995 Old Course win was not based on great golf per se, but the ability to outdrive what was then most of the trouble spots on the Old Course.
ReplyDelete