Power on the PGA Tour......

[clevited]

I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

 

It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

 

I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

>

> It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

>

> I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

 

The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

[clevited]

> @LICC said:

> > @clevited said:

> > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> >

> > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> >

> > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

>

> The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

 

Ok. Can you show an example of that. I hear about this, but I do not see it personally. Define what you mean by consistent. Is it that every tour pro is shooting sub 65 on them all the time or is it that you perceive it is like that, or is it that there are more players shooting sub 65 than you would personally like? How does the number of people shooting that score compare to yesteryear (pick an era I guess). How often are the par 4's a wedge and perhaps touch on how the wedge today compares to lofts of back in the day just as an aside. I really want to see you flesh out your argument.

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> > >

> > > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> > >

> > > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

> >

> > The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

>

> Ok. Can you show an example of that. I hear about this, but I do not see it personally. Define what you mean by consistent. Is it that every tour pro is shooting sub 65 on them all the time or is it that you perceive it is like that, or is it that there are more players shooting sub 65 than you would personally like? How does the number of people shooting that score compare to yesteryear (pick an era I guess). How often are the par 4's a wedge and perhaps touch on how the wedge today compares to lofts of back in the day just as an aside. I really want to see you flesh out your argument.

 

As the Tour doesn’t currently play on any courses nearly as short as the ones I listed, tell how you would like to have these examples you are seeking.

[clevited]

> @LICC said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> > > >

> > > > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> > > >

> > > > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

> > >

> > > The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

> >

> > Ok. Can you show an example of that. I hear about this, but I do not see it personally. Define what you mean by consistent. Is it that every tour pro is shooting sub 65 on them all the time or is it that you perceive it is like that, or is it that there are more players shooting sub 65 than you would personally like? How does the number of people shooting that score compare to yesteryear (pick an era I guess). How often are the par 4's a wedge and perhaps touch on how the wedge today compares to lofts of back in the day just as an aside. I really want to see you flesh out your argument.

>

> As the Tour doesn’t currently play on any courses nearly as short as the ones I listed, tell how you would like to have these examples you are seeking.

 

I think that just makes it opinion then and there really isn't any supporting information for your point of view. I am not making fun btw because of how you behaved in another thread. I think you may actually be decently knowledgeable about this subject compared to the other. I really would like anyone to explore their points of view as best they can and post a compelling argument for their opinion. Either a person will learn something and maybe find out they are blowing things out of proportion, or they will show some real information that will be interesting to discuss and perhaps people will learn something new.

[bladehunter]

> @clevited said:

> I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

>

> It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

>

> I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

 

Omg this is like a traffic accident. You don’t want to stare but you almost always do

 

I think you’re correct about the OPs goal. But his approach is a bit off putting. Or at least it seems to have a hook in it.

 

In the end this is another thread which will get nowhere. Why ? We just disagree too much on what we want to see.

 

To answer your last paragraph .... I’d give this. Most of the courses would be on my list. Why ? The percentage of less than pitching wedge approach shots is way out of balance. So distance. Which I know you’ve X-Ed out as a valid reason.

 

Which brings me to the hook. Or confusion as to what the point is. The OP clearly named this “ power on the pga tour “. And yet nobody seems to want to call distance a valid reason. Can we get a clarification on what the OP wants ? Is it majors only ? Is it no distance talk ? Is it parking lot space ?

[clevited]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @clevited said:

> > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> >

> > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> >

> > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

>

> Omg this is like a traffic accident. You don’t want to stare but you almost always do

>

> I think you’re correct about the OPs goal. But his approach is a bit off putting. Or at least it seems to have a hook in it.

>

> In the end this is another thread which will get nowhere. Why ? We just disagree too much on what we want to see.

>

> To answer your last paragraph .... I’d give this. Most of the courses would be on my list. Why ? The percentage of less than pitching wedge approach shots is way out of balance. So distance. Which I know you’ve X-Ed out as a valid reason.

>

> Which brings me to the hook. Or confusion as to what the point is. The OP clearly named this “ power on the pga tour “. And yet nobody seems to want to call distance a valid reason. Can we get a clarification on what the OP wants ? Is it majors only ? Is it no distance talk ? Is it parking lot space ?

 

I do think OP has an agenda rather than wanting a real discussion. I am truly trying to play nice here. I hear about these reasons all the time, I really would like to see someone quantify them as best they can rather then just say they see them too much. There has to be someone that can dig up some good info to share.

 

I do think though this is just another opinion thread that will get nowhere really. I am not even really very interested in it. I am burnt out from the distance threads. I can only handle one every few months ha.

[LICC]

> @clevited said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> > > > >

> > > > > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

> > > >

> > > > The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

> > >

> > > Ok. Can you show an example of that. I hear about this, but I do not see it personally. Define what you mean by consistent. Is it that every tour pro is shooting sub 65 on them all the time or is it that you perceive it is like that, or is it that there are more players shooting sub 65 than you would personally like? How does the number of people shooting that score compare to yesteryear (pick an era I guess). How often are the par 4's a wedge and perhaps touch on how the wedge today compares to lofts of back in the day just as an aside. I really want to see you flesh out your argument.

> >

> > As the Tour doesn’t currently play on any courses nearly as short as the ones I listed, tell how you would like to have these examples you are seeking.

>

> I think that just makes it opinion then and there really isn't any supporting information for your point of view. I am not making fun btw because of how you behaved in another thread. I think you may actually be decently knowledgeable about this subject compared to the other. I really would like anyone to explore their points of view as best they can and post a compelling argument for their opinion. Either a person will learn something and maybe find out they are blowing things out of proportion, or they will show some real information that will be interesting to discuss and perhaps people will learn something new.

 

Of course this is opinion. It is opinion on both sides. My opinion is based on factual analysis. Look at how Tour pros play most all par-4s under 400 yards. Nearly always a wedge in. Look how they play par-5s under 550 yards. Likely more birdies than not.

 

And as to behavior on the other thread, only one of the two of us behaved with personal insults and temper tantrums, and it wasn’t me.

[bladehunter]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > >

> > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > >

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > >

> > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > >

> > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > >

> > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> >

> > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

>

> Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

 

I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

[bladehunter]

> @clevited said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> > >

> > > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> > >

> > > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

> >

> > Omg this is like a traffic accident. You don’t want to stare but you almost always do

> >

> > I think you’re correct about the OPs goal. But his approach is a bit off putting. Or at least it seems to have a hook in it.

> >

> > In the end this is another thread which will get nowhere. Why ? We just disagree too much on what we want to see.

> >

> > To answer your last paragraph .... I’d give this. Most of the courses would be on my list. Why ? The percentage of less than pitching wedge approach shots is way out of balance. So distance. Which I know you’ve X-Ed out as a valid reason.

> >

> > Which brings me to the hook. Or confusion as to what the point is. The OP clearly named this “ power on the pga tour “. And yet nobody seems to want to call distance a valid reason. Can we get a clarification on what the OP wants ? Is it majors only ? Is it no distance talk ? Is it parking lot space ?

>

> I do think OP has an agenda rather than wanting a real discussion. I am truly trying to play nice here. I hear about these reasons all the time, I really would like to see someone quantify them as best they can rather then just say they see them too much. There has to be someone that can dig up some good info to share.

>

> I do think though this is just another opinion thread that will get nowhere really. I am not even really very interested in it. I am burnt out from the distance threads. I can only handle one every few months ha.

 

Absolutely agree. I just gave my opinion on current examples still active. That’s about all I have. Not really interested , just more curious as to what he’s driving at. Lol.

[RobS14526]

This is the answer. People wondering what, if anything, the USGA is going to do are underestimating the R&A’s influence.

 

> @marmooskapaul said:

> All of the dreary links courses in the "old country"...lol...especially Hoylake

 

 

[Titleist99]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > >

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > >

> > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > >

> > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > >

> > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> >

> > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

>

> I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

 

For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

[Titleist99]

> @LICC said:

> > @clevited said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

> > > > >

> > > > > The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

> > > >

> > > > Ok. Can you show an example of that. I hear about this, but I do not see it personally. Define what you mean by consistent. Is it that every tour pro is shooting sub 65 on them all the time or is it that you perceive it is like that, or is it that there are more players shooting sub 65 than you would personally like? How does the number of people shooting that score compare to yesteryear (pick an era I guess). How often are the par 4's a wedge and perhaps touch on how the wedge today compares to lofts of back in the day just as an aside. I really want to see you flesh out your argument.

> > >

> > > As the Tour doesn’t currently play on any courses nearly as short as the ones I listed, tell how you would like to have these examples you are seeking.

> >

> > I think that just makes it opinion then and there really isn't any supporting information for your point of view. I am not making fun btw because of how you behaved in another thread. I think you may actually be decently knowledgeable about this subject compared to the other. I really would like anyone to explore their points of view as best they can and post a compelling argument for their opinion. Either a person will learn something and maybe find out they are blowing things out of proportion, or they will show some real information that will be interesting to discuss and perhaps people will learn something new.

>

> Of course this is opinion. It is opinion on both sides. My opinion is based on factual analysis. Look at how Tour pros play most all par-4s under 400 yards. Nearly always a wedge in. Look how they play par-5s under 550 yards. Likely more birdies than not.

>

> And as to behavior on the other thread, only one of the two of us behaved with personal insults and temper tantrums, and it wasn’t me

 

LOL!

[LICC]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > >

> > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > >

> > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> >

> > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

>

> For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

 

Both of those courses had to change to significantly lengthen at substantial cost to stay barely long enough to still be viable major venues. Pebble added 200 yards from what it was just nine years ago. The Old Course is over 7,300 yards now. They are examples that are contrary to your premise.

 

From Golf Digest: "Action was taken. As has already been the case in 2015, the 2021 Open at St. Andrews will see players driving from tees located on the Old Course, the New Course, the Eden Course, the Himalayas putting course and, in the case of the previously fearsome Road Hole, a field to the right of the 16th fairway. Take that aforementioned stroll round the Old and the walks between the previous green and the next tee amount to more than 1,000 yards. And that is only half way. After the often long (and annoying) walk back and to the right at many holes, that yardage must be retraced just to get back to where the tee used to be."

[bladehunter]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > >

> > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > >

> > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > >

> > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> >

> > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

>

> For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

 

Oh I understood the truth perfectly. Lol. Just took the bait to smoke it out.

 

And I don’t mean that overly snarky. Just in a what don’t you just state your opinion and intentions to start with and stop fishing for the “ I got ya “ moment?

[Titleist99]

> @LICC said:

> > @clevited said:

> > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> >

> > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> >

> > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

>

> The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

 

LOL!! It is obtuse statements like this with no facts that makes one question credibility even though the statement is largely opinion...…….but I digress.

[LICC]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @clevited said:

> > > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> > >

> > > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> > >

> > > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

> >

> > The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

>

> LOL!! It is obtuse statements like this with no facts that makes one question credibility even though the statement is largely opinion...…….but I digress.

 

Says the person who thinks a 6,500 yard course would hold up as a major venue. I think you should look in the mirror when calling statements obtuse ...

[Titleist99]

> @LICC said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > > >

> > > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > > >

> > > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> > >

> > > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

> >

> > For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> > This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

>

> Both of those courses had to change to significantly lengthen at substantial cost to stay barely long enough to still be viable major venues. Pebble added 200 yards from what it was just nine years ago. The Old Course is over 7,300 yards now. They are examples that are contrary to your premise.

>

> From Golf Digest: "Action was taken. As has already been the case in 2015, the 2021 Open at St. Andrews will see players driving from tees located on the Old Course, the New Course, the Eden Course, the Himalayas putting course and, in the case of the previously fearsome Road Hole, a field to the right of the 16th fairway. Take that aforementioned stroll round the Old and the walks between the previous green and the next tee amount to more than 1,000 yards. And that is only half way. After the often long (and annoying) walk back and to the right at many holes, that yardage must be retraced just to get back to where the tee used to be."

 

 

 

 

Right there you are wrong they didn't have to do anything.....they wanted to do that. Evolution is part of the game. Distance off the tee has only increased 40 yards in 40 years.....That's a fact.

I'll just leave it right there....

[gvogel]

> @LICC said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @clevited said:

> > > > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> > > >

> > > > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> > > >

> > > > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

> > >

> > > The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

> >

> > LOL!! It is obtuse statements like this with no facts that makes one question credibility even though the statement is largely opinion...…….but I digress.

>

> Says the person who thinks a 6,500 yard course would hold up as a major venue. I think you should look in the mirror when calling statements obtuse ...

 

Exactly.

 

Harbor Town is around 7,000 yards from the tips, and players such as Rory McIlroy and Brooks Koepka won't play it because it can't be exploited by their superior driving distance. 6,500 yards is a joke for the tour.

[LICC]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > > > >

> > > > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> > > >

> > > > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

> > >

> > > For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> > > This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

> >

> > Both of those courses had to change to significantly lengthen at substantial cost to stay barely long enough to still be viable major venues. Pebble added 200 yards from what it was just nine years ago. The Old Course is over 7,300 yards now. They are examples that are contrary to your premise.

> >

> > From Golf Digest: "Action was taken. As has already been the case in 2015, the 2021 Open at St. Andrews will see players driving from tees located on the Old Course, the New Course, the Eden Course, the Himalayas putting course and, in the case of the previously fearsome Road Hole, a field to the right of the 16th fairway. Take that aforementioned stroll round the Old and the walks between the previous green and the next tee amount to more than 1,000 yards. And that is only half way. After the often long (and annoying) walk back and to the right at many holes, that yardage must be retraced just to get back to where the tee used to be."

>

>

>

>

> Right there you are wrong they didn't have to do anything.....they wanted to that. Evolution is part of the game. Distance off the tee has only increased 40 yards in 40 years.....That's a fact.

> I'll just leave it right there....

 

They wanted to do that because the courses would be obsolete if they didn't. Maybe you wouldn't mind seeing wedge shots on every par-4, but many golf fans would not like to see major courses played that way. 40 yards on 14 holes (non-par 3s) is 560 yards. And that is not factoring in the increases in distance for irons.

[Titleist99]

> @LICC said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> > > > >

> > > > > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

> > > >

> > > > For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> > > > This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

> > >

> > > Both of those courses had to change to significantly lengthen at substantial cost to stay barely long enough to still be viable major venues. Pebble added 200 yards from what it was just nine years ago. The Old Course is over 7,300 yards now. They are examples that are contrary to your premise.

> > >

> > > From Golf Digest: "Action was taken. As has already been the case in 2015, the 2021 Open at St. Andrews will see players driving from tees located on the Old Course, the New Course, the Eden Course, the Himalayas putting course and, in the case of the previously fearsome Road Hole, a field to the right of the 16th fairway. Take that aforementioned stroll round the Old and the walks between the previous green and the next tee amount to more than 1,000 yards. And that is only half way. After the often long (and annoying) walk back and to the right at many holes, that yardage must be retraced just to get back to where the tee used to be."

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Right there you are wrong they didn't have to do anything.....they wanted to that. Evolution is part of the game. Distance off the tee has only increased 40 yards in 40 years.....That's a fact.

> > I'll just leave it right there....

>

> They wanted to do that because the courses would be obsolete if they didn't. Maybe you wouldn't mind seeing wedge shots on every par-4, but many golf fans would not like to see major courses played that way. 40 yards on 14 holes (non-par 3s) is 560 yards. And that is not factoring in the increases in distance for irons.

 

LOL!.....This has to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said and that's saying something.....If St. Andrews never change in next 100 years it will never be obsolete..

The fact that you think they would have to change all 14 driving hole because driving has increased 40 yard in 40 years is down right scary....

[LICC]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

> > > > >

> > > > > For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> > > > > This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

> > > >

> > > > Both of those courses had to change to significantly lengthen at substantial cost to stay barely long enough to still be viable major venues. Pebble added 200 yards from what it was just nine years ago. The Old Course is over 7,300 yards now. They are examples that are contrary to your premise.

> > > >

> > > > From Golf Digest: "Action was taken. As has already been the case in 2015, the 2021 Open at St. Andrews will see players driving from tees located on the Old Course, the New Course, the Eden Course, the Himalayas putting course and, in the case of the previously fearsome Road Hole, a field to the right of the 16th fairway. Take that aforementioned stroll round the Old and the walks between the previous green and the next tee amount to more than 1,000 yards. And that is only half way. After the often long (and annoying) walk back and to the right at many holes, that yardage must be retraced just to get back to where the tee used to be."

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Right there you are wrong they didn't have to do anything.....they wanted to that. Evolution is part of the game. Distance off the tee has only increased 40 yards in 40 years.....That's a fact.

> > > I'll just leave it right there....

> >

> > They wanted to do that because the courses would be obsolete if they didn't. Maybe you wouldn't mind seeing wedge shots on every par-4, but many golf fans would not like to see major courses played that way. 40 yards on 14 holes (non-par 3s) is 560 yards. And that is not factoring in the increases in distance for irons.

>

> LOL!.....This has to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said and that's saying something.....If St. Andrews never change in next 100 years it will never be obsolete..

> The fact that you think they would have to change all 14 driving hole because driving has increased 40 yard in 40 years is down right scary....

 

It would be obsolete for majors. Look, you tried to come up with some scenario that you thought was intelligent and would prove your point, and it backfired on you badly because I brought realistic analysis and views to this discussion. So now you are lashing out again. Maybe for your own good you should take a breather.

[bladehunter]

> @LICC said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> > > > > > This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

> > > > >

> > > > > Both of those courses had to change to significantly lengthen at substantial cost to stay barely long enough to still be viable major venues. Pebble added 200 yards from what it was just nine years ago. The Old Course is over 7,300 yards now. They are examples that are contrary to your premise.

> > > > >

> > > > > From Golf Digest: "Action was taken. As has already been the case in 2015, the 2021 Open at St. Andrews will see players driving from tees located on the Old Course, the New Course, the Eden Course, the Himalayas putting course and, in the case of the previously fearsome Road Hole, a field to the right of the 16th fairway. Take that aforementioned stroll round the Old and the walks between the previous green and the next tee amount to more than 1,000 yards. And that is only half way. After the often long (and annoying) walk back and to the right at many holes, that yardage must be retraced just to get back to where the tee used to be."

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Right there you are wrong they didn't have to do anything.....they wanted to that. Evolution is part of the game. Distance off the tee has only increased 40 yards in 40 years.....That's a fact.

> > > > I'll just leave it right there....

> > >

> > > They wanted to do that because the courses would be obsolete if they didn't. Maybe you wouldn't mind seeing wedge shots on every par-4, but many golf fans would not like to see major courses played that way. 40 yards on 14 holes (non-par 3s) is 560 yards. And that is not factoring in the increases in distance for irons.

> >

> > LOL!.....This has to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said and that's saying something.....If St. Andrews never change in next 100 years it will never be obsolete..

> > The fact that you think they would have to change all 14 driving hole because driving has increased 40 yard in 40 years is down right scary....

>

> It would be obsolete for majors. Look, you tried to come up with some scenario that you thought was intelligent and would prove your point, and it backfired on you badly because I brought realistic analysis and views to this discussion. So now you are lashing out again. Maybe for your own good you should take a breather.

 

I’d suggest ignoring this thread as of here. While it’s still really obvious to anyone with an open mind who instigated the last thread closing. It’s obvious to me who stirs the pot up , lights the fire and then runs away and watches it burn. Not just one person. But this one is a major player.

 

It’s just not worth the effort.

[Bad9]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > >

> > > The cool thing about this thread is it asks a specific question. There have been some answers, but I don't think any (mine included) have been definitive. IDK if someone can come up with a list of venues that have been excluded solely due to lack of length. There are a lot more factors at play. Check out the picture of #16 Pasatiempo above. I don't see a lot of room for grandstands, lol.

> >

> > Infrastructure is a proper response. Some venue just don't have the room for parking grandstand etc... Some venues member just don't want to give up their golf course (most are private) . What I'm not hearing is "The golf course is to short".

> >

> > People have not rendered anything but lip service when I ask for specific courses....I get crickets,

>

> I’d add the venue stipulation to the OP. I was compiling a list that didn’t include “because lack of parking. “. You had originally just ask about the players. Not the traveling circus too. I personally think that with today’s massive TV deals they could afford to have 2-4 events a year without many spectators , TV only wouldn’t kill the tour a couple times a year.

 

I understand what you are saying but I would bet that they do not want to televise a sparsely attended, pro event. Same reason they don't like to show half empty baseball and football stadium during games.

[Titleist99]

> @LICC said:

> > @Titleist99 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> > > > > > This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

> > > > >

> > > > > Both of those courses had to change to significantly lengthen at substantial cost to stay barely long enough to still be viable major venues. Pebble added 200 yards from what it was just nine years ago. The Old Course is over 7,300 yards now. They are examples that are contrary to your premise.

> > > > >

> > > > > From Golf Digest: "Action was taken. As has already been the case in 2015, the 2021 Open at St. Andrews will see players driving from tees located on the Old Course, the New Course, the Eden Course, the Himalayas putting course and, in the case of the previously fearsome Road Hole, a field to the right of the 16th fairway. Take that aforementioned stroll round the Old and the walks between the previous green and the next tee amount to more than 1,000 yards. And that is only half way. After the often long (and annoying) walk back and to the right at many holes, that yardage must be retraced just to get back to where the tee used to be."

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Right there you are wrong they didn't have to do anything.....they wanted to that. Evolution is part of the game. Distance off the tee has only increased 40 yards in 40 years.....That's a fact.

> > > > I'll just leave it right there....

> > >

> > > They wanted to do that because the courses would be obsolete if they didn't. Maybe you wouldn't mind seeing wedge shots on every par-4, but many golf fans would not like to see major courses played that way. 40 yards on 14 holes (non-par 3s) is 560 yards. And that is not factoring in the increases in distance for irons.

> >

> > LOL!.....This has to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said and that's saying something.....If St. Andrews never change in next 100 years it will never be obsolete..

> > The fact that you think they would have to change all 14 driving hole because driving has increased 40 yard in 40 years is down right scary....

>

> It would be obsolete for majors. Look, you tried to come up with some scenario that you thought was intelligent and would prove your point, and it backfired on you badly because I brought realistic analysis and views to this discussion. So now you are lashing out again. Maybe for your own good you should take a breather.

 

And this said by the #2 thread wrecker on the board.... sorry, you have a long way to go to be #1 at nonsensical posts.....keep trying though.

[gvogel]

> @Titleist99 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Does that mean that you won't be posting in my thread again? Hope so !!

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting concept. I can't think of a single golf course that is too short to host a competition where the lowest number of strokes wins.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When in fact most all of the tour golf courses are insufficient in length to test the world's best players.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm taking this as well-known courses that wouldn't be able to provide a decent challenge for a PGA Tour event. Just looking at the Golf Digest Top 200 US:

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Cypress Point

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fishers Island

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Crystal Downs

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pacific Dunes

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Camargo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maidstone

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Essex County

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Myopia

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Montecito

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Creek

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eastward Ho!

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > St. Louis

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fox Chapel

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fairfield

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting. I think every course on that list is long enough to host a stroke play event.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pasatiempo, at 6500 yards, hosts the Western with top DI players who bomb it. I played it the week before the tournament this year, and it was playing tough. I think only 13 players in the field were under par after three rounds. -3 got you a T7.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Big difference when it comes to the Tour. 6 par-4s under 400 yards. A par-5 at only 500 yards. Half these guys would be at 5-under every round on these holes alone.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ha! I'll go out on a limb and guess you've never played it. First, 6500 yards on the West Coast (the actual coast) isn't equivalent to 6500 yards on the East Coast. Not even close. Second, there's a bit more to the course than the length. If it had the room to host a PGA Tour event, I would bet my house that it wouldn't be the lowest winning score relative to par on tour.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think you are really stretching on that one! These guys hit it really far and dial in their wedges really close on either coast. Whether it would be the lowest score to par on the whole Tour or not isn't the deciding factor. Whether it has enough length to provide enough of a challenge to be a respectable PGA Tour event is the question.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, maybe. Still, I think it would hold up just fine because it's a great design. It's wild to see certain classic courses still be able to challenge elite level players, and others have to resort to massive changes.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > A Sunday pin on #16 at Pasatiempo would be incredible to watch. At 387, it would be iron-wedge, for sure, but that's not the challenge of the hole. If you'd ever tried to clip one off that downslope a precise distance, or be facing almost certain three-putt, you'd know what I'm talking about. Mackenzie's favorite hole on his favorite US course.

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nice Post......you get the gist of the thread. Just putting that out there because the thread wreckers are coming....LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > > Meaning what? I thought @"Ashley Schaeffer" and I had a good discussion on this with good points raised by both of us. Of course, my facts and analysis may counter your view, so let your freakout begin ... LOL!

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > Totally different discussion.....I simply asked for the names of the venues that a major tournament can't be played due to the power game PGA TOUR and explain why? That shouldn't be to hard for anyone with average intelligence......

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No, as usual, you didn't ask for anything even close to that. Pray tell where in the original post (goalposts, lol, which have been moved yet again) you were asking about hosting major tournaments.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Well, the goal post is always on roller.....Just want to know the name of the obsolete golf course that is taken out of the rotation for major tournaments due to the power game of the PGA TOUR. easy peasy…….Some times it's not due to players length,

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Your original question didn’t ask about the rotation for majors. It just asked about courses not long enough for Tour pros. Which I gave a list. If you are now just asking about major rotas, that question is not as relevant because many courses have spent lots of money to lengthen in order to stay feasible for majors.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Some say that the tour, with it's power game is making the old classic courses obsolete.....I simply want to know which courses and why....

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I’d say pebble and St. Andrews is your best answers. Neither is more than pitch and putt minus very hard wind. And yes. I know each was always more toothy with wind. But. Both have bunkers designed to guard fairways that are now just being blown over with 3 woods. Neither will get yanked from the rota for historical reasons. But they will provide some embarrassing scores of the wind doesn’t blow.

> > > > >

> > > > > For a poster that don't understand the thread you sure posted a wonderful post....You happen to mention two of the most iconic courses in the world and major Tournaments are still contested on both. Neither course is overly long and depends on the winds to protect them, yet both are totally relevant today. My objective is to dispel the myth that the old courses are becoming obsolete and major tournament can't be held there due to modern players power ,be it for what ever reason...… that's why I'm trying to look at the old courses that hosted Major Tournaments in the past and determine which may have other reasons for not being in the rotation....

> > > > > This is not a driver thread....I personally believe that driving is overrated and that a touring pro needs a total game to be successful. I personally believe that the game of golf is fine and no course is obsolete...Power just sell tickets.

> > > >

> > > > Both of those courses had to change to significantly lengthen at substantial cost to stay barely long enough to still be viable major venues. Pebble added 200 yards from what it was just nine years ago. The Old Course is over 7,300 yards now. They are examples that are contrary to your premise.

> > > >

> > > > From Golf Digest: "Action was taken. As has already been the case in 2015, the 2021 Open at St. Andrews will see players driving from tees located on the Old Course, the New Course, the Eden Course, the Himalayas putting course and, in the case of the previously fearsome Road Hole, a field to the right of the 16th fairway. Take that aforementioned stroll round the Old and the walks between the previous green and the next tee amount to more than 1,000 yards. And that is only half way. After the often long (and annoying) walk back and to the right at many holes, that yardage must be retraced just to get back to where the tee used to be."

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > Right there you are wrong they didn't have to do anything.....they wanted to that. Evolution is part of the game. Distance off the tee has only increased 40 yards in 40 years.....That's a fact.

> > > I'll just leave it right there....

> >

> > They wanted to do that because the courses would be obsolete if they didn't. Maybe you wouldn't mind seeing wedge shots on every par-4, but many golf fans would not like to see major courses played that way. 40 yards on 14 holes (non-par 3s) is 560 yards. And that is not factoring in the increases in distance for irons.

>

> LOL!.....This has to be the most ridiculous thing you have ever said and that's saying something.....If St. Andrews never change in next 100 years it will never be obsolete..

> The fact that you think they would have to change all 14 driving hole because driving has increased 40 yard in 40 years is down right scary....

 

As I have stated before, when a course becomes so short that it becomes largely a drive and pitch course, the balance of skill that a player requires to shoot the lowest score shifts strongly toward short iron play, pitching and putting. Heck, you might as well play the tournament on a good par 3 course. But most golfers and golf spectators will say that such a course, a good par 3 course, is not proper golf. So the argument shifts back to how long does a course need to be to be a proper test for the golfers - especially the best tour players.

 

We are having that discussion. And most knowledgeable golfers and golf fans can easily see that the Old Course becoming obsolete through greater distance. You say no; but golf writers have asked the question, so it must be a topic of conversation within the golf community.

[bladehunter]

> @Bad9 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > >

> > > > The cool thing about this thread is it asks a specific question. There have been some answers, but I don't think any (mine included) have been definitive. IDK if someone can come up with a list of venues that have been excluded solely due to lack of length. There are a lot more factors at play. Check out the picture of #16 Pasatiempo above. I don't see a lot of room for grandstands, lol.

> > >

> > > Infrastructure is a proper response. Some venue just don't have the room for parking grandstand etc... Some venues member just don't want to give up their golf course (most are private) . What I'm not hearing is "The golf course is to short".

> > >

> > > People have not rendered anything but lip service when I ask for specific courses....I get crickets,

> >

> > I’d add the venue stipulation to the OP. I was compiling a list that didn’t include “because lack of parking. “. You had originally just ask about the players. Not the traveling circus too. I personally think that with today’s massive TV deals they could afford to have 2-4 events a year without many spectators , TV only wouldn’t kill the tour a couple times a year.

>

> I understand what you are saying but I would bet that they do not want to televise a sparsely attended, pro event. Same reason they don't like to show half empty baseball and football stadium during games.

 

Yea. I get that too. Maybe no viewers would look better ?

 

I just think that some of the really old courses would be of great interest to ME personally while watching on tv. I can’t be the only one that would pay to watch a tour event at say Chicago CC, Charleston CC, or prestwick ?

[Titleist99]

> @gvogel said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @clevited said:

> > > > > I think the OP is trying to point out the inconsistencies regarding the reasons people think courses can't be played anymore. Or maybe I am incorrect but that was the jist I got. Some say too short, but then there are clearly courses that are as short or shorter that play more challenging and get a lot of praise. There are people that chime in and say, yeah but, they had to grow the rough and increase the stimp to keep it near par. Well then you are saying that par is the reason the courses lengthened, because it is viewed as bad that players shoot good scores relative to par?

> > > > >

> > > > > It is all opinion on what of golf anyone wants to see. Many argue length isn't important and that par is just a number. There are multiple ways to protect par if you want. There are courses that imo, were better designed to stand the test of time, there are courses that did not and are in some peoples opinions, being destroyed.

> > > > >

> > > > > I would really love to see people list their courses they think cannot be played anymore on the tour and give your best argument as to why it cannot be played. I don't think saying its too short, or because of par are very detailed or good reasons alone. Seeing some more people elaborate on that would be great I think.

> > > >

> > > > The courses I listed are too short to pose an interesting enough challenge to a Tour pros. Watching consistent sub-65 rounds because every par-4 is a wedge in and every par-5 is an expected birdie is not compelling for many golf fans, especially if you are talking majors.

> > >

> > > LOL!! It is obtuse statements like this with no facts that makes one question credibility even though the statement is largely opinion...…….but I digress.

> >

> > Says the person who thinks a 6,500 yard course would hold up as a major venue. I think you should look in the mirror when calling statements obtuse ...

>

> Exactly.

>

> Harbor Town is around 7,000 yards from the tips, and players such as Rory McIlroy and Brooks Koepka won't play it because it can't be exploited by their superior driving distance. 6,500 yards is a joke for the tour.

 

Sound smart to me. What's your point? Major tournaments should do the same thing.

[LICC]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Bad9 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > >

> > > > > The cool thing about this thread is it asks a specific question. There have been some answers, but I don't think any (mine included) have been definitive. IDK if someone can come up with a list of venues that have been excluded solely due to lack of length. There are a lot more factors at play. Check out the picture of #16 Pasatiempo above. I don't see a lot of room for grandstands, lol.

> > > >

> > > > Infrastructure is a proper response. Some venue just don't have the room for parking grandstand etc... Some venues member just don't want to give up their golf course (most are private) . What I'm not hearing is "The golf course is to short".

> > > >

> > > > People have not rendered anything but lip service when I ask for specific courses....I get crickets,

> > >

> > > I’d add the venue stipulation to the OP. I was compiling a list that didn’t include “because lack of parking. “. You had originally just ask about the players. Not the traveling circus too. I personally think that with today’s massive TV deals they could afford to have 2-4 events a year without many spectators , TV only wouldn’t kill the tour a couple times a year.

> >

> > I understand what you are saying but I would bet that they do not want to televise a sparsely attended, pro event. Same reason they don't like to show half empty baseball and football stadium during games.

>

> Yea. I get that too. Maybe no viewers would look better ?

>

> I just think that some of the really old courses would be of great interest to ME personally while watching on tv. I can’t be the only one that would pay to watch a tour event at say Chicago CC, Charleston CC, or prestwick ?

 

I enjoy watching some of the LPGA events on certain courses that are too short for the PGA Tour. The US Women's Open was at Charleston CC this year, although it didn't show well on television.

[bladehunter]

> @LICC said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Bad9 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @Titleist99 said:

> > > > > > @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > > > > > > @Hawkeye77 said:

> > > > > > > And surprise, back to the same old stuff as before - it was done to death.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The cool thing about this thread is it asks a specific question. There have been some answers, but I don't think any (mine included) have been definitive. IDK if someone can come up with a list of venues that have been excluded solely due to lack of length. There are a lot more factors at play. Check out the picture of #16 Pasatiempo above. I don't see a lot of room for grandstands, lol.

> > > > >

> > > > > Infrastructure is a proper response. Some venue just don't have the room for parking grandstand etc... Some venues member just don't want to give up their golf course (most are private) . What I'm not hearing is "The golf course is to short".

> > > > >

> > > > > People have not rendered anything but lip service when I ask for specific courses....I get crickets,

> > > >

> > > > I’d add the venue stipulation to the OP. I was compiling a list that didn’t include “because lack of parking. “. You had originally just ask about the players. Not the traveling circus too. I personally think that with today’s massive TV deals they could afford to have 2-4 events a year without many spectators , TV only wouldn’t kill the tour a couple times a year.

> > >

> > > I understand what you are saying but I would bet that they do not want to televise a sparsely attended, pro event. Same reason they don't like to show half empty baseball and football stadium during games.

> >

> > Yea. I get that too. Maybe no viewers would look better ?

> >

> > I just think that some of the really old courses would be of great interest to ME personally while watching on tv. I can’t be the only one that would pay to watch a tour event at say Chicago CC, Charleston CC, or prestwick ?

>

> I enjoy watching some of the LPGA events on certain courses that are too short for the PGA Tour. The US Women's Open was at Charleston CC this year, although it didn't show well on television.

 

Yep. I agree. But for some reason I thought it was half due to the telecast itself. Always an odd angle etc. the fact that we had the direst summer I can recall was the reason for course condition issues. We had several 6 week runs of 95 plus heat and not a drip of rain.