Which type of PGA tournament course do you like more?

Do you like the winners scores to be like the British Open, somewhere in the even par to -3 range, or do you like one like this weeks birdie Bonanza where leaders are at -6 & -5 half way through the first round? I know it wont happen, but can you imaging a winner on Sunday at -40?

Courses with good architecture, preferably old and non-TPC/RTJ-style. Give me low scores at Greenbrier or Greensboro on classic courses over -5 at Memphis.

The scores reflect the setup more than the course. Hard fairways and greens plus rough equal high scores, whereas soft greens yield lower scores.

I generally enjoy it when pros get their asses kicked by a course. Makes me feel better about the 105 I drop on an average 18.

Watching on TV it doesn't really matter to me because you can see all the players and gauge how they are doing in relation to each other (why Mickelson's round on Sunday was so special), but when you're actually there (and I've only ever been to the Wells Fargo so that is my only frame of reference) I think seeing birdies is more exciting.

Agree with CDeacMan that when you are at the course, it is much cooler to see a lot of birdies and hear the roars around the course. When the low score of the day is a 69, you don't get too much of that.

If I had to chose between the two options TARDAWG gave, I prefer the winning score to be in the even to -3 range. I don't like tournaments where a player shoots -5 on the day and loses ground to the field.

Ideally, I like tournaments where the best score of the day is in the -6 range and the winner of the tournament is in the -8 to -12 range.

I like challenging courses where the winning score is between E to +8 or so. But that's the easy way to categorize it. The best courses are ones that penalize poor shoots either with difficult rough, or with hazards. The course should also reward truly good/great shoots with opportunities at birdie. I think the course set up last week for the British fit the bill for all of this with a few pin placements not withstanding.

That said it's hard to ignore a course like Augusta which generally yields scores a little higher than the ones I just mentioned, but it's a course that really rewards great shots and placement on the greens. Hard to beat a close back nine at the Masters with guys hitting great shot after great shot and making birdies on the par 5's and having to have great placement at Amen Corner.

I don't care as much what the winning score is. So if the wind doesn't blow at Pebble or Shinnecock for example, I don't mind if they go low as long as it's a good course. But what I really want to see is physical beauty and interesting terrain, and I'm not as fond of the old cookie cutter parkland type courses where many US Opens and PGAs are played, even though they're great courses (places like Medinah, Oakmont, Hazeltine and Oak Hill). That's why I like most of the Irish courses and Castle Stuart and don't watch much Euro golf except for those 2 and the Open. My favorite US Open and PGA courses are Pebble, Olympic, Chambers Bay, Sehallee, Whistling Straits, Kiawah and Shinnecock. Seaside with long wild grass, contouring and craggly bunkers is the look I like. That's why I also love the West Coast Swing - Riviera, Pebble and Torrey Pines are gorgeous.

I like watching the guys play the tougher courses, especially in the majors. It doesn't even have to be a killer course where the winning total is even or worse, but I like the courses that challenges the guys. Courses like Augusta and Sawgrass sometimes yield fairly low winning scores, but you almost always see somes guys gagging down the stretch at those courses too. Tourney's like the Bob Hope are probably my least favorite to watch because it is too easy for the PGA tour guys and it basically comes down to whoever makes the most putts that week.

There's a perfect medium, and it seems like The Masters typically comes closest to achieving it every year in my opinion.

Birdie-fests are usually awful. Means the course is too open and the greens aren't challenging enough - it becomes a putting contest and doesn't reward the best players.

On the other end of the spectrum is the US Open, and while having one tournament that crushes everyone is good overall, it's often not very interesting to watch. Players are so defensive - irons and 3 woods off tees, every putt is a lag putt, etc - kills a lot of excitement. The final 9 usually has someone backing up and guys who never had a lead end up winning. Merion having actual birdie holes made it a lot more fun to watch in my opinion.

Par is just a number, so it really makes little difference to only talk about score relative to par. I mean, great that they call #10 at Congressional a par 4 for PGA Tour players. It averages higher scores than some of the par 5's. The great thing about Augusta is it has risk/reward holes, tons of trouble to get into, high scores are common - but when guys get it going they can still make birdies/eagles and not just play defensively.

I think those setups tend to separate one group of around 4 players to a few strokes up on the rest of the field, which can be a lot of fun to watch. The Open was almost that type of setup - it was just so inconsistent between days that players who separated themselves one day weren't able to the next. Day 2 a player would land a shot 20 yards in front of a green and watch it roll to 10 feet. Then they hit the same shot in the same wind at the same time the next day but the crew watered the area until it turned green and the ball would sit 10 yards short.

cville deac said:

I don't care as much what the winning score is. So if the wind doesn't blow at Pebble or Shinnecock for example, I don't mind if they go low as long as it's a good course. But what I really want to see is physical beauty and interesting terrain, and I'm not as fond of the old cookie cutter parkland type courses where many US Opens and PGAs are played, even though they're great courses (places like Medinah, Oakmont, Hazeltine and Oak Hill). That's why I like most of the Irish courses and Castle Stuart and don't watch much Euro golf except for those 2 and the Open. My favorite US Open and PGA courses are Pebble, Olympic, Chambers Bay, Sehallee, Whistling Straits, Kiawah and Shinnecock. Seaside with long wild grass, contouring and craggly bunkers is the look I like. That's why I also love the West Coast Swing - Riviera, Pebble and Torrey Pines are gorgeous.

Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. For example, a lot of people consider Firestone a "classic" course because it is old, but in reality it is just a long, narrow, tree-lined course. There is one strategy - hit it in the narrow fairway, hit it on the flat green. Boring. The USGA really seems to have moved away from that type of course.

But, Oakmont is a fantastic course, especially after the redo. The greens are wild and the holes really demand a lot of strategic decisions.

I have a strong bias towards Oak Hill because I grew up playing and caddying there. In 2003 the rough got too penal, but the East really is a great Donald Ross course with the exception of a couple holes that Tom Fazio screwed up (literally everything he did to the course was bad). They need to trim substantially or cut down about 1,000 trees (its name is appropriate). But I think it would (and does) differ from the boring parkland courses because it can allow for different decisions depending on the conditions. There are some great shorter holes and some brawny long par 4s. If they are not afraid to give up -8 or -10 to the winner, it would provide an excellent test and a fun tournament to watch. The membership rests much pride on its prior brutal tournaments though, so don't bet on it! Actually, the West course is a more pure Ross track with much wilder greens. The members far prefer playing the West.

Actually, I give Bill Haas a legitimate shot at OHCC given his track record on similar courses (East Lake, Congressional). He will also have the benefit of Billy Harmon's wisdom - Billy is his coach and worked as an assistant there for a number of years under his brother Craig. He also caddied for Jay for years.

Courses with a good mixture of half par holes.

DCDeac said:

Par is just a number, so it really makes little difference to only talk about score relative to par. I mean, great that they call #10 at Congressional a par 4 for PGA Tour players. It averages higher scores than some of the par 5's. The great thing about Augusta is it has risk/reward holes, tons of trouble to get into, high scores are common - but when guys get it going they can still make birdies/eagles and not just play defensively.

Click to expand...

Do you mean #18? I thought #10 was a par 3.

And you point one of the many great things about Augusta National.

Looks like the back 9 must be tougher or conditions changed, leaders in at -7 & -6 so far on opening day.

qcdeac said:

Do you mean #18? I thought #10 was a par 3.

And you point one of the many great things about Augusta National.

Click to expand...

Ah, right, now it's #11. It was #10 when I played it, then they flipped the par 3 18th backwards to play it as the par 3 10th. #11 is that par 4 that has the creek up the right side, is uphill all the way, 510 yards and when they put the pin in the back of that green this year it played like 530. Saw a few guys hit decent drives and then lay up. Hardest par 4 by almost a half stroke on the week, that day it played to like 4.8 average whereas 6 (the par 5) played to a 4.6.

deacz said:

I'm with you on this. For example, a lot of people consider Firestone a "classic" course because it is old, but in reality it is just a long, narrow, tree-lined course. There is one strategy - hit it in the narrow fairway, hit it on the flat green. Boring. The USGA really seems to have moved away from that type of course.

But, Oakmont is a fantastic course, especially after the redo. The greens are wild and the holes really demand a lot of strategic decisions.

I have a strong bias towards Oak Hill because I grew up playing and caddying there. In 2003 the rough got too penal, but the East really is a great Donald Ross course with the exception of a couple holes that Tom Fazio screwed up (literally everything he did to the course was bad). They need to trim substantially or cut down about 1,000 trees (its name is appropriate). But I think it would (and does) differ from the boring parkland courses because it can allow for different decisions depending on the conditions. There are some great shorter holes and some brawny long par 4s. If they are not afraid to give up -8 or -10 to the winner, it would provide an excellent test and a fun tournament to watch. The membership rests much pride on its prior brutal tournaments though, so don't bet on it! Actually, the West course is a more pure Ross track with much wilder greens. The members far prefer playing the West.

Actually, I give Bill Haas a legitimate shot at OHCC given his track record on similar courses (East Lake, Congressional). He will also have the benefit of Billy Harmon's wisdom - Billy is his coach and worked as an assistant there for a number of years under his brother Craig. He also caddied for Jay for years.

Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. The traditional courses are great. My folks lived in Akron for a few years, and a couple of times I planned visits to coincide with the WSOG. Great old fashioned course and loved going there. As for Oakmont, I like the layout, but the greens are too tricked up with all the crazy undulations and plateaus - no idea how Miller shot a 63 there. And Winged Foot may be the best Open venue in that they don't have to trick it up in any way to make par a good score. It's just that tough a track. Mike Davis prolly doesn't even have to visit the place when it hosts the Open.

But when it comes to watching any tourney on TV, I prefer not watching it on a traditional inland layout, with the exception of Augusta. High degree of difficulty combined with spectacular scenery is my favorite watching. Which is why I'm excited about Chambers Bay. It'd be cool if they did an Open or PGA at Bandon Dunes, but the logistics are prolly way too difficult. And did you catch that Euro event that McDowell won on the bluff in Bulgaria over the Black Sea? That place was stunning.

Edited to add a link to pics of Thracian Cliffs and Chambers Bay.

http://www.google.com/search?q=thra...AOKnYH4Cg&sqi=2&ved=0CFoQsAQ&biw=1024&bih=629

http://www.google.com/search?q=thra...69,d.dmg&fp=1aea9e2bb00a394c&biw=1024&bih=629

I prefer courses where par is a good score and below par represents exceptional play. To me the excitement comes from seeing pros having to work and use a full array of shots in order to compete. Shot-making is more important than raw power. The short game should be severely tested. If a player can consistently hit fairways and greens he should be rewarded, if he misses either he should have to make great recoveries or pay the price.

Of course all of this is just my opinion.

Totally unrelated, but I'm watching Tiger's third Amateur title in 1996. He's 2 down with 3 to play and Scott rolls in a par putt from 15 feet. Tiger's got 10 feet for birdie and he forgets to move his coin back. Scott reminds him, Tiger drains the putt, the rest is history.

Would have been an automatic loss of hole and Scott is the Amateur champion 3 and 2.

There are a hundred examples of sportsmanship in golf similar to that, but it's still amazing to see. Love seeing that.