{"id":1251180,"date":"2024-05-15T18:41:02","date_gmt":"2024-05-15T18:41:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/golftoday.co.uk\/?p=1251180"},"modified":"2024-05-16T19:50:06","modified_gmt":"2024-05-16T19:50:06","slug":"behind-the-architectural-curtain-106th-pga-championship-pt-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/golftoday.co.uk\/behind-the-architectural-curtain-106th-pga-championship-pt-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Behind the Architectural Curtain – 106th PGA Championship Pt.2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Part 1<\/span><\/a><\/h4>\n

 <\/p>\n

The PGA Championship switched dates from mid-August to mid-May. How important is it for the timing of an event to maximize both the given architecture in concert with optimum turf presentation?<\/h4>\n

Drew Rogers:<\/strong><\/span> I think the date and course selection are more critical to the actual site\/location than anything. Mid-May in Minnesota, for example, could actually experience some shouldering \u201cend of winter\u201d conditions that might not be ideal.<\/p>\n

By contrast, mid-August in Florida could be a complete washout due to rainy season propensities. So, unfortunately the date is not a one-size-fits-all solution, it seems, depending on each of the selected venues.<\/p>\n

Beau Welling:<\/span><\/strong> I think the change made a lot of sense because it provides the players with a major championship every month from April to July, which is important because of the team events every year and also the Olympics every four years. The shift to May also opens up the potential for new host venues but clearly, they need to have the right grass types and climates to best present a course’s architecture in May.<\/p>\n

Jerry Lemons:<\/strong><\/span> The turf is as much these days more critical, but weather patterns can impact the firmness of the courses when switched.<\/p>\n

As with Valhalla and the change to Zoysia grass, a late spring might have the zoysia in any given year a little bit behind. If a course is too soft, they can play it shorter if it needed to be.<\/p>\n

Chris Cochran:<\/span><\/strong> I am a big fan of the May PGA Championship. By moving it to May it opens so much more of the country where the championship can be played like Florida, Texas, Arizona, and the Gulf states, etc.<\/p>\n

I think this outweighs possible agronomic issues a course could experience from a bad winter.<\/p>\n

Dr. Michael J. Hurdzan:<\/strong><\/span> Today\u2019s golf courses are built or remodeled with so much incorporated technological advancements such as vacuum drainage, high tech rootzones, precision irrigation, lab-selected bunker sands and liners, advanced turfgrass cultivars, when coupled to the best management practices by Golf Course Superintendents<\/strong><\/span><\/a>, that golf courses tend to play the same in any warm month.<\/p>\n

In addition, with climate change, there may be fewer differences between mid-May and mid-August playing conditions as time goes on.<\/p>\n

\"Valhalla<\/p>\n

One of the more interesting and recent developments for major events is having at least one par-3 play in the range of 250 or more yards in order to secure long iron and even fairway metal usage. What’s your take on the importance of the long par-3 hole and can more be done in that manner?<\/h4>\n

Chris Cochran:<\/span><\/strong> I like the long par-3. I think it is fun to see the best players having their long approach games being tested, especially when you see them hitting so many short irons during a round.<\/p>\n

Typically, there is more pressure on a player trying to hit a green in regulation with a long iron than hitting a long iron trying to reach a par 5 in two. Trying to have the golfer hit every club in the bag during a round of golf is still a priority for most architects.<\/p>\n

Beau Welling:<\/span><\/strong> I think forcing longer club play on par threes can make a lot of sense but at the end of day, variety of par threes is what we seek. We want to ensure that the par threes are all distinct and memorable \u2013 so having a long par three around 250 yards (or more) really helps achieve that variety.<\/p>\n

Dr. Michael J. Hurdzan:<\/strong><\/span> Long par-3s tend to be boring and generally benefit the longest hitters, while the greatest par-3s are short; 12 at Augusta National, 7 at Pebble Beach, 17 at TPC Sawgrass, and many, many more examples.<\/p>\n

However, the truly exciting hole today is the driveable par-4 of 280 \u2013 320 yards, that can be made devilishly hard yet playable by everyone, albeit with different strategies.<\/p>\n

Jerry Lemons:<\/strong><\/span> I agree with any strategy to make the players be tested with every club in their bag. The long par threes are just part of this.<\/p>\n

Drew Rogers:<\/strong><\/span> A hole does not have to be long to challenge the best players in the world. Long holes don\u2019t tend to stir much imagination or interest. For that reason, I would enjoy seeing shorter par-3s with really difficult shot values. And those are holes that are exciting to watch and are experiences that spectators can relate to as well.<\/p>\n

\"A
A view from the third hole at Valhalla Golf Club (Gary Kellner\/PGA of America)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Are bunkers irrelevant today at the elite level?<\/h4>\n

Dr. Michael J. Hurdzan:<\/strong><\/span> Old Tom Morris said, \u201cBunkers are not a place for pleasure: they\u2019re for punishment and repentance.\u201d But what has allowed elite players to seemingly master sand play is because bunkers have become consistent and predictable playing surfaces, even between golf courses.<\/p>\n

This is a result of sophistication in sand selection, bunker liners and maintenance practices to create \u201cperfect\u201d bunkers, that has eliminated the capricious nature and fear of the old-time hazards, that were appropriately called \u201csand traps,\u201d that rarely played the same, even on the same course.<\/p>\n

In 2006, Jack Nicklaus tried deeply furrowed bunker raking at the Memorial to disrupt perfect lies, and most pros hated it, so it was gone. Bunkers that challenge the best players today tend to be smaller, sometimes resulting in awkward stances caused by ragged edges and\/or grass islands, or the ball being against a near-vertical front face.<\/p>\n

Drew Rogers:<\/strong><\/span> They\u2019re not what they used to be. Players are really skilled at hitting great shots out of impeccably maintained bunker – more so than deep rough. Bunker depth and positioning can still impact elite players, but they\u2019re also really punitive to the average player as well. So where do you draw those lines in designing a course?<\/p>\n

Who\u2019s paying the bills and racking up the rounds? There are plenty of other ways to introduce obstacles that will impact good players \u2013 and they don\u2019t have to involve sand. So those details are all about creativity within the architect\u2019s strategic vision.<\/p>\n

Chris Cochran:<\/span><\/strong> I think bunkers are very relevant. If you look at Shotlink and scrambling data from the tour the average up and down out of green side bunkers is less than 50%.<\/p>\n

Fairway bunkers are very relevant, look at last year’s PGA when Victor Hovland on the back nine of Sunday didn\u2019t get his approach shot out of the fairway bunker down the stretch and how much the momentum changed after that.<\/p>\n

Watching tournament golf especially in person, you see how hard the players work to avoid the bunkers. In addition, elite players appreciate the beauty of a well-designed, placed, and artistic bunker as much if not more than most.<\/p>\n

Jerry Lemons:<\/strong><\/span> I hope not, but the thought of every lie in a bunker being perfect has driven clubs to the same level of expectation of consistency we wanted greens to be 30 years ago.<\/p>\n

Beau Welling:<\/span><\/strong> I would not say that bunkers are irrelevant but most elite-level players are very good out of the sand, so bunkers are not the penalty they used to be. Course conditioning and the design of bunkers are a factor because players can end up with \u201cgood lies\u201d in the sand.<\/p>\n

To take that thought a step further, we are now seeing players intentionally trying to hit into the sand to take advantage of certain situations \u2013 that was something we saw from Justin Thomas during his 2022 PGA Championship victory at Southern Hills.<\/p>\n

If bunkers had more randomness and a higher probability of \u201cfunny lies,\u201d then they would have a different effect. But that wouldn\u2019t be popular in today’s game.<\/p>\n

\"A
A view from the 11th hole (Gary Kellner\/PGA of America)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

What do you think architects such as Alister MacKenzie, A.W. Tillinghast, George Thomas, Donald Ross, et al – would think of how golf courses have evolved since their respective time frame?<\/h4>\n

Jerry Lemons:<\/strong><\/span> If they were dropped in today, they would shake their heads, but if they had seen it evolve slowly as it has done, they would grasp many good things as good for the game.<\/p>\n

Drew Rogers:<\/strong><\/span> I don\u2019t think they would be all that surprised. Most architects from the Golden Age wrote about the subject of evolution 100 years ago \u2013 almost as if they were warning the reader that courses would be impacted by technology, etc. over time.<\/p>\n

That said, I think they would share the same concerns that have been expressed today about losing the strategic impacts of their designs. At the same time, though, I think they may be pretty impressed with advances in golf course management and efficiencies developed to aid in the construction and maintenance of golf courses.<\/p>\n

Dr. Michael J. Hurdzan:<\/strong><\/span> Those past masters were not design geniuses on day one, so they had to evolve and refine their own design thinking, to include adopting new innovations that might improve their golf courses such as irrigation, drainage, improved grasses, and better maintenance equipment and techniques.<\/p>\n

So, I think that they would generally embrace the modern golf course, except perhaps our penchant for over-manicured green grass everywhere and bright white sand that makes modern golf courses look \u201cartificial\u201d compared to their era.<\/p>\n

Chris Cochran:<\/span><\/strong> I think they were very smart and clever architects. The game has changed so much since they were designing courses. At the elite tournament level, I think they would understand how much money is involved, TV viewership and what viewers like to see, how good the elite players are, and therefore would understand why tournament courses are what they are today and would do similar work.<\/p>\n

I think they would also understand issues facing the game like the cost of labor, availability of qualified staff, rising equipment and materials cost and availability of clean water, players expectations for maintenance of golf courses, etc. and would design accordingly.<\/p>\n

Beau Welling:<\/span><\/strong> I am sure they may have some interesting thoughts. Overall, I think they would be shocked initially but quickly grow excited by the possibilities of reconfiguring and reimagining how to adapt their designs to today\u2019s game.<\/p>\n

\"A
A view from the 17th hole (Gary Kellner\/PGA of America)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Valhalla ends with a risk\/reward par-5. What’s your take on having a par-5 hole placed in the finishing role?<\/h4>\n

Jerry Lemons:<\/strong><\/span> With adequate risk, it is exciting. It should barely be reachable, at least with a 3-wood.<\/p>\n

Chris Cochran:<\/span><\/strong> From a spectator\u2019s standpoint they offer great drama and excitement.<\/p>\n

Drew Rogers:<\/strong><\/span> As long as the hole forces players to make some critical choices, as the best golf holes do, the par seems irrelevant to me.<\/p>\n

Having to make decisions under pressure usually provokes some level of drama \u2013 and that\u2019s what that hole is intended to do.<\/p>\n

Dr. Michael J. Hurdzan:<\/strong><\/span> One only needs to think of the great finishing hole at Pebble Beach, Kapalua Plantation, Shadow Creek, and I would be remiss not to mention Erin Hills, to understand just how exciting a par-5 can be, if it is a true risk\/reward hole.<\/p>\n

These are not easy holes to create given the distances elite players hit the ball, length alone is not enough, so there must be significant risk involved for failure to execute. But when such a design can be pulled off, these holes are awesome.<\/p>\n

Beau Welling:<\/span><\/strong> We are fans of par-five finishing holes. In general, we tend to favor holes that can offer \u201chigh volatility\u201d in scoring and a risk-reward par five is a good example. Having it at the end of the round can be very dramatic as it gives a player the potential to go and score to win. It’s super fun for spectators, too.<\/p>\n