Pete Kostis Suggests the USGA Create Their Own TPC Network
by Ryan Ballengee on Jul 7, 2010 12:22 PM EDT
in Pro Golf
Email
PrintMy buddy and e-mail nemesis Peter Kostis is back with a new golf.com column and, man, is he trying to stir the pot. Kostis uses the KonicaMinolta Website column to suggest that the USGA should abandon its century-plus tradition of trotting around our national championships to epic courses around the USA in favor of creating two, large, sprawling course farms - one on each coast - that would host all USGA championships.
::Slaps head::
The pretense for the entire suggestion is that, in Pete's words, "the 17th hole at Pebble Beach became virtually unplayable" at the 2010 US Open. He even compared it the 8th at Shinnecock in '05. So that kills the credibility of the idea. Shinnecock was a one-time nightmare. Crews had to water the grass as groups played through to keep it marginally fair. That did not have to happen at Pebble though, yes, the green at 17 should have been softer to be more receptive to incoming shots. To lump that 17th at Pebble with the 8th at Shinny is an exaggeration and, frankly, an insult to Mike Davis.
That aside, Kostis suggests that each facility would have three courses to host our national championships - "one to host the U.S. Open, another for the U.S. Women's Open and a third for amateur events — the men's and women's U.S. Amateurs, the Walker Cup and the Curtis Cup."
Great! So each course will be used once per year except that third one where some dozen amateur championships will be contested? No problem on wear and tear there.
And who would design said courses? "Ben Crenshaw and Bill Coore; Tom Weiskopf and Jay Morrish; Jack Nicklaus; Tom Doak; Rees Jones; Robert Trent Jones Jr.; Pete Dye and Tom Fazio."
So what about all of those great dead architects that wouldn't be around to contribute? Too bad for them. Sure, everyone loves a MacKenzie, but why make every effort to play there when a Fazio is available at 7400 yards out of the box?
Kostis' idea isn't without some merit. Such a facility would afford the USGA complete control over agronomy at these courses year-round. The USGA already has much of that control leading into the championship year. They don't have complete control, but a lot of prescription.
The combination of being able to develop courses to modern equipment and have complete control over agronomy, Kostis says, would allow "courses like Merion, Winged Foot, Pebble Beach and Shinnecock Hills [to] no longer have to be lengthened or altered to meet USGA championship standards."
It would also allow them to never be seen by the public, with the pricey exception of Pebble Beach. The point of the Open - in part - is to showcase the greatest of American golf courses. These courses have become legendary all with nearly a century to age, mature, and evolve. The courses have already been altered, without USGA intervention, over their life span.
Kostis is suggesting that the USGA create its own TPC-equivalent. In part, that would mean the equipment issue does not have to be addressed. The golf ball does not have to be rolled back, corralled, or regulated if the USGA simply shelled out $50 million to build six courses that are only in two of fifty states. It's an easy argument to make because the USGA would spend that money. The manufacturers would not, unlike what they had to do to comply with the grooves regulation change. It's quite a bit of payback for the Far Hills folks if they had to shell out money to build courses that conform to rules that they can change at any time.
And what for tradition? Kostis acknowledges that wiping out the notion of the National Open rota would render old records meaningless. And he's ok with that because he cites the ridiculous notion that St. Andrews has wiped out the old course record of 62 prior to the 2005 Open Championship. One bad decision does not substantiate another.
There is something to be said for the benefits of having concentrated testing centers for agronomy. Frankly, though, it's not worth the amount of money it would take to build such a facility as an also-ran to three golf courses. While media would be happy with closer parking to national championships, again, is the cost of convenience worth the slaughter of American golf's traditions and grandeur? Absolutely not.
What's more is the Open and other championships also bring economic development and tourism money into these locales that host them. The economic impact of hosting the US Open can lead to $100 million in money that would not otherwise make its way into these local markets. As new gems like Chambers Bay and Erin Hills replenish the pantheon of American golf greats, more states will benefit from the money that comes with a USGA championship. By building two facilities - one of each coast - at least 90% of the country would be left out of the Open fun. That leaves the PGA Championship to fill that gap.
Kostis' entire argument is based upon three bad par 3s, his disdain for USGA equipment rules, and a goal of closer parking. The loss of tradition, incredible architecture, economic development, and competitor challenge are all not worth losing on that basis alone.
Oh, and how would the USGA pay to maintain these courses? That might be a response unto itself.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Well – it’s not THE dunbest idea Kostis has ever proposed. There is a lot of truth in what he said in the article. The great old courses are being re-designed to death, and the things that made them great is being streteched way too thin. The US Open and the USGA does too much damage to these courses for the one week of play. Even Mike Davis can’t get completely away from the need for firm and fast greens that barely survive four rounds of golf.
Kostis didn’t say he doesn’t like the great classic architects – but they ARE dead – so it’s a little difficult to consult with them past studying their designs and writings…which all of the great modern architects have done.
We disagree that the “point” of the US Open is to showcase golf courses around the country. The point of the US Open is to have a great tournament and crown a great champion.
But we don’t disagree that a part of the tradition of the US Open is the constant motion. The courses are familiar, but they are different every time they are played because of the passage of time.
I would be torn over leaving behind courses designed by Donald Ross, and Tillinghast, and MacKenzie – but if the courses they designed are so distorted from their original ideas, are these guys really playing their courses ? And what of today’s great desingers ? Don’t they deserve a shot at showcasing their talents ? When the Ross/MacKenzie/Tillinghast/et al courses were young and the US Opens started playing, those men were contemporary designers – not “classics”.
Kostis does provide food for thought. Not so sure the “golf farm” idea is very good idea for the US. (has Kostis been brain washed by the Communist Chinese and their “farms” ?) :-D Like you say, you can’t cut out more than 90% of the country just to have two sites for USGA tournaments, ping ponging between the two.
Then we have golf fans like Eas and Wendy would end up losing sleep every other year to watch the US Open on the west coast.
It’s not Kostis usual drivel – at least this one opens the floor for some discussion of modernization.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Given that there is a glut of high-end courses already struggling in the US, the idea of the USGA investing in and operating its own series of championship courses makes as much financial sense as some of the bad mortgages we all are paying for thanks to government bailouts.
I also agree with Court that the US Open is not to showcase great courses, instead it is intended to identify the champion golfer of the year in the USA. That the tournament is held on great courses is a bonus.
If the USGA were truly serious about keeping older tracks from being obsoleted by modern technology, it could easily spec out a tournament ball that limited distance, because that’s 98% of what is making places like Merion “obsolete.” Jack Nicklaus has been saying that for years and he is correct. The vendors might not like the idea, however, and it would undoubtedly create a court battle nonpareil.
I don’t know about a court battle – but it would sure be interesting to see a tournament or two wih a reduced flight ball. Cut the ball back 10%…take 10% off the course length. It’s just a matter of math for the TV people to adjust stats to let the audience know what they would usually see as far as distance goes. Ball companies already make personalized formulas for their players. This just requires a few dozen balls for each player – something they could do pretty quickly.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
In line with the REDUCED FLIGHT BALL,
do you think that the Tour, or any other governing body would mandate a single ball for Tournaments? like the NFL, MLB, round ball? that’s where you might see the court battle….STUB
a single ball ? not a chance. these aren’t stupid people – they understand these little things called contracts and endorsements. but a single set of specs can be produced by any company for their players.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
What would be the point?
If they’re producing from one set of specs, then what would be the point of all the manufacturers making their own? I guess if the specs were broad like just providing min/max spin rates and max distance, I could see it. But if we’re talking about core makeup and dimple configuration, then the companies might as well just license one ball and stamp their own logos on them.
by Double Eagle on Jul 8, 2010 11:38 AM EDT up reply actions
well – for one specific tournament – advertised as a test event – would that be so bad ? I wouldn’t have a problem with companies using their own dimple patterns. Post date the dimple design so the rocket science guys can’t come up with a way around the core specs.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
It wouldn't be bad at all
I’m actually a supporter of one ball period, but I understand the demands on sponsorship. As I said, though, you could easily get around that by licensing and stamping company logos on the regulation balls. It doesn’t make much difference who actually physically made the ball, only how much the name is seen or spoken about on TV.
I think having one ball is the only way around the issue because if you give them time, the rocket scientists WILL find a way to squeeze more out of any specs you give them. The eternal cat and mouse game would continue on and on.
If it was up to me, I’d have one ball made to spec and send a few cases to each player complete with their sponsor logo stamped on them at the start of the season. Problem solved.
by Double Eagle on Jul 8, 2010 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Makes sense, DE, but it would deprive The Temptations of rereleasing
their “Ball of Confusion” record.
They still make records, no? Oh, right, cassettes.
If ALL things were equal, I would agree with you – but the ball is equipment and just like clubs, one ball doesn’t fit everybody. You can’t legislate one ball for everybody. Do you want a bomber’s ball or a control player’s ball….. ?
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Is a ball with GPS installed out of the question?
by TXQ on Jul 8, 2010 1:42 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s been done. A couple of years ago, a company came out with a ball with a chip inserted in the core and you carried a little direction finder to locate your ball. They were trying to get all the ball manufacturers to release balls with the chip option, but it hasn’t panned out.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Yikes! I was totally kidding, as is my wont.
Now I’m not sure if you’re totally kidding, Court, as is your occasional wont.
by TXQ on Jul 8, 2010 2:09 PM EDT up reply actions
It doesn't matter much
With individually designed and fitted balls, there’s still a difference of 47.2 yards between the top (Robert Garrigus) and bottom (Craig Bowden) guys on the PGA Tour in the category of driving distance. So even with all that technology and individual tweaking, the difference is still monumental among the top players in the world and yet the shorter hitters still compete.
In a one-ball situation, Dustin Johnson is still going to blow Corey Pavin away, just like he does now. Now, obviously we can’t keep courses as long as they are, but putting them back to the lengths they were 20 years ago would probably be sufficient.
Even in a virtual free-for-all of equipment, there’s nothing that has come along that has equalized the field. And why should it? If you hit the ball long, that should be an asset, just the same as if you’re able to throw darts from within 100 yards or if you’re able to putt the lights out. Either a player can compete or he can’t. A short hitter makes up for that with increased skill in other areas or he doesn’t survive at that level. That wouldn’t change with a single ball for everyone.
There Already ARE Ball Specs
Too lazy to go look it up and link it, but the USGA and R&A have already legislated ball specifications and they must be followed. Weight, minimum size, number of dimples, max launch speed, etc. are all addressed.
That hasn’t stopped the manufacturers from improving the ball. Those specs have not created one ball.
The specs can be updated and tightened, and there would still be multiple balls. Hard cover, soft cover, three, four or five layers, wouldn’t matter. It would simply reduce the flight characteristics and the bombers would still bomb, the straight and narrow players would still do that, etc.
by Charles Boyer on Jul 8, 2010 2:37 PM EDT up reply actions
It's not just the ball...
The irons are all 4 degrees stronger than 20 years ago, plus half an inch longer shafts. The Driver shaft too is more like 46 inches compared to 43 inches 20 years ago. Players fitter than then ? Not much if you ask me. Seve and Norman hit the balata 300 yards with a persimmon driver in the ’80’s as did Jack 20 years before them. Today you have the Bubba’s and Johnson’s there, Stenson and Kaymer here, but it’s a combination of the ball and the clubs that make the difference today. I agree a 10% reduction in the ball for all pro events would fix the problem overnight. The move some tees forward 20 yards before we get 8,000 yard courses.
It's not the lofts
Club design has certainly increased distance, but iron lofts don’t have anything to do with that. The iron number is just a number stamped on the sole. Yes, it’s true that a pitching wedge today is more like a 9-iron from generations gone by, but again, it’s just a number stamped on the sole.
With respect to length, that’s something that gets marketed to us more than anything. For an interesting take on the subject, I recommend Tom Wishon’s books. He points out that Tour pros don’t often use drivers that long because they can’t control them as well.
Also, much of the distance increases in clubs have come with the driver. The thing is, COR, MOI, and distance are already limited on conforming clubs. With irons, I can’t say whether there’s been a significant increase in distance for two irons of the exact same loft (again, forget the number stamped on the sole) from this era versus, say, the 70’s, but I know that a lot of the technology has centered around forgiveness and workability, which doesn’t increase distance as much as preserve distance on mishits.
With respect DE
Pitching wedge right up to 3 iron is 4 degrees stronger. My present 6 iron is the same as my 5 iron of 20 years ago…the 6 iron shaft the same length as the old 5. A 6 iron today goes 15 yards further than an old one, no matter what ball is used. Yes, it is a number stamped on the club. But it explains why one hears on TV "he hit a 7 iron 200 yards " when 20 years ago it would have flown 170 yards. It’s not just the ball.
Yes
But that doesn’t really change the distance a player is physically able to hit the ball. If I take your 3-iron and stamp PW on the bottom and tell everyone you hit the longest wedges I’ve ever seen, it doesn’t really mean much. Now, if you take out your 3-iron, which is more like a 2-iron and you hit it 320 yards then we’re comparing apples to apples. The point being that if you take an iron out of your bag with 18-degrees of loft, and hit a club from 1970 with 18-degrees of loft (forget what number it is), they’re going to be much closer in performance than a driver from today and a driver from 1970.
And again, I’m not saying it’s just the ball. But when you talk about courses becoming obsolete because of equipment, balls and drivers are at the top of the list of causes. Woods/hybrids are probably next, for reasons similar to the driver, and irons are a distant fourth.
Shafts probably contribute the most, allowing players to hit irons on a higher trajectory (thus hold greens easier with longer irons). That’s probably their biggest impact.
Ryan Moore took the iron numbers off of his clubs and had them put the lofts on the soles. Pretty cool idea.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Definitely smart
If they sold clubs that way, it would probably help us all. But like E said, selling “longer” clubs helps the bottom line, so we’re stuck. Every time we switch manufacturers or models, it seems like there’s a bigger than necessary break-in period while we have to sort out how everything will perform.
it's all what you get used to
It doesn’t matter what’s on the bottom of the club, or how long the shaft is – if you have 150 yards to the hole, you have to know which club to pull and what swing to make with that club to play the shot. The only thing all these hot, strong clubs have done is sell more wedges. If that old pitching wedge was your 100 yard club and now it’s your 125 yard club, you still need something to hit the 100 yard shot.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I agree about the Driver being the main culprit
if i can use that term. The only other thing I would add is how forgiving a 3 iron is that it’s 1970 2 iron rival. When I purchased Taylor made burners this year, I watched a video of Faldo hit his irons against the Burner. 10 more yards, same ball. I know it’s for sales, but I don’t think Faldo would make false claims about that.
True
I don’t suspect it’s a false claim, but like you said, when they mess with lofts it makes things seem longer, when in reality they just changed the numbers on the bottom.
Forgiveness is a big change too, but that’s mainly for us. The best of the best don’t mishit it as often as we do or to the same degree. In that sense, you’re probably right that today’s irons allow us to hit it somewhat further, but as I said above, that’s more of an issue of not losing distance as opposed to adding extra distance.
Longer clubs are harder to control, and players really aren’t getting much better. We might be able to hit the ball farther, but for an awful lot of players, that just means further into the woods.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
You're dead wrong, Court. There's no way I could hit my ball any farther
into the woods.
by TXQ on Jul 8, 2010 4:36 PM EDT up reply actions
Would they come out the other side of the woods if you did?
I kid, I kid.
by Charles Boyer on Jul 8, 2010 5:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
Related FanPosts on Waggle Room
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
