“How’s Mike Game?�

 

 

Since I have joined “Team Weir�, I have been asked a lot about Mike’s game. I think people would like an “inside� scoop on how he feels about his game. On occasion, I do know how he feels about his game since he sometimes comes up while we talk, but generally I know as much as you do.

 

I’m certainly far more invested in how he’s doing, since I’ve had a chance to meet Mike and have grown to like him personally. I now check every round he plays and often try to follow him mid-round when I get the opportunity. Just like you, I want him to do really well. Just like you, I’m disappointed (for him) when he misses a cut or has an off round.

 

Lately I have been asked what’s wrong with Mike. But even more fun is people have said “this is what he needs to do.� I think only Mike and his coach know what they need to do. I can’t solve my own swing issues, how could I ever recognize someone else’s? The other aspect people forget is Mike is in the middle of getting away from stack and tilt and back to his old swing. If any of you have ever made a major fundamental change, you know that takes quite a long time to set in and more importantly a longer time for you to trust the change.

 

To me Mike’s in transition. Once he has a high finish this year, we all can say “I knew he would find it.� I know how hard he works on his game and how serious he is about practice, so I’m pretty confident that it will all click some time soon. Will I pass on all your suggestions when I see him in Victoria, sorry, no. But I will have a good look at his game up close and share what I see.

 

June 7th, 2010

 

 

 

Jack Nicklaus on Golf Architecture through the Years 

  

This is taken from quotes in Golf World's "Jack Nicklaus In His Own Words" compliled by Brett Avery.

  

  

1965

 

Scores will be in the 50s within 10 years or so. They get lower every year. That is if courses aren't stretched to 7,500 yards by then or the ball compression lowered.

 

1967

 

All sports are improving. They're running the mile faster, swimming faster. So it's only natural that golf scores should be better. To try to make players shoot the same score they shot 20 years ago when the Open was played here [Merion] by changing the course is wrong. There are too many great players today.

1970

 

A golfer must play [St. Andrews] at least a dozen times before he can expect to understand its subtleties. If a player becomes irritated at the bad bounces and unusual things that happen at St. Andrews, forget it. The Old Course must be accepted for what it is: a layout built hundreds of years ago and still such a challenge that no player ever has torn it apart over 72 holes.

1974

I have learned humility [designing courses]. There were a couple of famous American architects whose courses I really disliked, and I tended to say so given the slightest opening. Some of my comments embarrass me now. I still do not care for their concepts, their broad strokes, but I do understand the sheer technical reasons for a lot of their work. And the main thing I understand is that when they did something that was not to my taste, it was usually because they did not have any alternative.

The hardest thing for me to accept in my early days as a designer was that every routing ends up as a compromise between golfing purity, environmental requirements, and commercial necessity.

No great golf course was ever right at the start. Golf courses aren't built... they evolve.

1982

Golf architects too often accept an inferior piece of property just to get the job. The result, almost inevitably, is an inferior course.

 

1992

 

Given today's equipment, a course would have to be 7,700 yards long to extend the best players to their maximum. Once the Ping [lawsuit against the PGA Tour] thing's over, the ball will be the next big issue.

2008

  

I often wondered why we worry so much about the winning score and par. And it seems as though to continue to do that we continue to change golf courses, continue to spend a fortune and for what reason? Almighty par.

 

What to Do?

 

 

The Parkside Starters Course

 

I found myself with a really interesting dilemma today.

 

A month back, I was asked to review the City of London’s Municipal Golf System. I spent a couple of days going over each facility. I reviewed them as part of big picture and explained the value of each course with-in an overall system of golf courses. I also reviewed each course and recommending improvements for each hole as I would with any course review that I conduct.

 

The system in London is one of the best I have seen. They have a starter’s course that I took my kids out to play. No bunkers, no long rough, no lost balls and no tees. It is a perfect place to start playing the game. The course was exactly what every community needs. It’s what Mike and I will build if given the chance.

 

 

Thames Valley 7th

 

They also had a nine hole executive and four eighteen hole courses that were all fairly short. Two were fairly friendly where players should not expect to lose a ball, one was a bit tougher but generally player friendly again, and the last one was pretty difficult despite being short. In other words they had everything you could possibly want to bring players to the game. The only thing they lacked was a longer championship length course for the best players in the city. The question is whether they need that facility or not, do they need something longer to entice the best players to remain in the system.

 

I reviewed Thames Valley Classic with an eye to producing a Master Plan. The course is lined by massive oaks and is set on a really great piece of terrain. The potential is enormous. They simply need to address a couple of safety issues, some agronomic issues and add a little more character with some bunkering work, but otherwise it’s great as it is.

 

 

Thames Valley 13th

 

It could be something special! The course could incorporate two holes from the Hickory Nine (the original nine at Thames before more land was added) which would fit right into the routing and allow the course to become 6,800 yards. The threes that would disappear help deal with some safety issues and provide some additional tee placement that would add more length. The dilemma is whether they need this facility. As an architect, we are naturally inclined to what to deliver the best golf courses. This is not hard to do at Thames Valley…..but is it the right thing to do?

 

June 1st, 2010

 

 

The Canadian Open

 

 

The 3rd at St. George's

 

Tomorrow is the Canadian Open press conference where Mike and the RCGA will be talking about the Canadian Open. This year’s event is at St. George’s, which I think is one of Canada’s best golf courses. There is no question in my mind that the Canadian Open would become a regular stop for the PGA Tour’s better players IF they would play on a short rotation involving only the best courses.

 

So for arguments sake what would I suggest to be that rotation?

 

(1) Hamilton was the single best host that they have used since 1976. It may be the best tournament venue we have. The pros loved it and if it was on the rotation every year the field would improve dramatically. (2) St. George’s would be the second choice. As long as the logistics of a separate range, busing in patrons and a tight property work, this should be a mainstay. (3) Royal Montreal has the history, the length and the space to be a great location. The only knock for me is the course, since there are far too many Rees Jones look-a-like courses on the tour. Pros are complaining about that too. (4) Laval-sur-le-lac Blue would be next since they need to go to Montreal two of five years and there is no other venue. Besides, it will be really good.  :  )   (5) Shaughnessy is the only Western course that can host it. Going west after the British Open guarantees a weaker field, but if the event moves the issue is gone.

 

 

Proposed 14th at Laval

 

My Rotation going forward would be:

 

10 St. George’s

11 Shaughnessy

12 Royal Montreal

13 Hamilton

14 Laval

15 St. Georges

16 Shaughnessy

17 Laval (100^th anniversary)

18 Hamilton

19 Royal Montreal

 

If I were the RCGA, I would approach all five clubs and ask for a commitment from all of them at the same time to this long-term plan. I think the rotation could then be sold to the players as the best we have to offer.

 

May 31st, 2010