Great Views Equals Great Golf Course, Right? No.

by Ryan Ballengee on Oct 19, 2009 11:51 PM EDT Comment 3 comments

Steph Wei was at the LPGA's corporate outing last week and caught a couple of minutes with Cristie Kerr. The most intriguing part of it for me was Kerr's view on Liberty National - the godawful course that hosted the Barclays this year.

The Cupp-Kite design really is an abortion of a course, but it has stunning views of the New York skyline everywhere a player looks. That's because it is designed to distract the player from the abominable course layout, with all sorts of collection areas that are designed to collect good and bad shots alike.

Kerr, though, is a member at Liberty National. She maintains an Arizona residence but has a membership at the club. She described her take on the course:

Liberty is a first-rate facility. You can’t beat the views. The layout of the course is fantastic.

The guys are just used to shooting nothing at a golf course and that’s not how the Firemans and Liberty wanted it to play. They wanted it to play like a major championship course, so that’s how they set it up — the rough was up, the greens were fast. Those are the best male golfers in the world and I think they can handle that.

Let's be very clear here. Great views does not mean a great golf course. Great views make a great park, or bus on which to sit to sightsee a city. A course can have brutal surroundings and still be a fantastic track. Conversely, a great course can have beautiful surroundings and still be worse to play than a dog track. Ask Tiger how he feels about Poppy Hills.

Or, consider DC's Hains Point. The golf course has spectacular views. Players hit shots toward a wide open view of the Washington Monument. For as phallic as the monument is, the view is pretty stunning. And the course is about as fun to play as riding a bike with no seat.

A couple of years ago, PGA Tour player Steve Marino played at Hains Point's East Potomac Golf Course for a story in the Washington Post. Playing it as a pseudo-tune up for Oakmont and the '07 US Open, Marino left begging for the Mike Davis funmaze of mirrors.

"This actually kind of makes me look forward to Oakmont," he said. "That course might be a better fit for me."

It's proof positive that beauty doesn't necessarily make a course great. And neither do closely-mown greens, out of place water hazards, or bizarre collection areas.

0 recs | Comment 3 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

a bit too far ?

…RB – your logic is a two edged sword. The reviews of Liberty National were not glowing, to say the least, but they don’t give license to go beyond their intended meaning. Describing LN as “an abortion of a course” was never even slightly implied. Making someone look forward to Oakmont isn’t the same as looking forward to going to the local $25 muni. Oakmont may have been a brutal test of golf – but it is still a great golf course.

Exaggeration does not add legitimacy to an argument.

Liberty National has flaws. It had to be artificially expanded to get to an appropriately challenging length – to do that, they had to build some very silly tee boxes – and in doing so, they changed how the course was designed to play. Landing areas were altered, which changed the way greens were approached.

The goofy collection areas can’t be defended, but they can be changed. A couple of water hazards need to be reshaped – but those are things that can be fixed.

LN was chosen for a PGA Tour event prematurely, and after seeing it in its present condition, it should never be a PGA Tour course again. They needed to do more trial runs, then make some changes to the course to make it a top level course. Since they don’t have the land to expand the course so it can be played as Kupp intended the other 51 weeks of the year, they would have to practically redesign the course just to satisfy the PGA Tour players – probably not a good investment just to be able to say that it is a PGA Tour host course.

I’m with you on Cristie Kerr’s catty remarks. As good as she is, she doesn’t have the same abilities the PGA Tour men have, and doesn’t know what the men look for in a great golf course. Her assumptions that the men just want to make a course easier is complete nonsense. LN probably plays as a great test of golf for her and the members, but it isn’t the same with the artificial additions. We’ve made the same argument about Suzie Whaley’s bogus, though “by the rules”, win to get into a PGA Tour event.

Just because a course isn’t appropriate for a PGA Tour event doesn’t make it not a top flight course. Like you said, great views don’t make a course “great” – but they don’t hurt, and they don’t make it any less of a course.

"this ball will fit in that fairway"

by courtgolf on Oct 20, 2009 1:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree completely with Court here, RB. His opinion is stated with far more measurable logic and much less hyperbole, and he comes to much the same conclusion as you: that LN is not ready for prime time, not yet anyway.

As a member of a Kite/Cupp design, I recognized a lot of the personalities of my course in LN. In fact, it was like Eagle Ridge on steroids, and how my course might be completely ruined it were amped up over the top. Eagle Ridge is like any golf course in that everyone faces the same conditions and hazards and the better golfer is the guy who wins. Webb Simpson shot a 65 here, and we have a Canadian Tour pro who may have done better recently…not sure, but I did catch him at -3 after four holes.

by Old Man Par on Oct 20, 2009 12:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs