Top100Golfer

I totally agree with the premise and topic of this post. More respect is indeed needed for 9 hole courses. One of the greatest courses ever constructed (which has sadly been lost) was designed by CB Macdonald and Seth Raynor in Newport Rhode Island: The Ocean Links. One of the best courses I have ever played is the Valliere course at Morfontaine in Paris: challenging, varied and fun with difficult greens. Anyone who has played at the Bandon Reserve course probably doesn't need to be convinced of the value and fun of a par 3 course. One of the things I learned about golf wring a book about Ralph Kennedy, who played golf on 3,165 different course between 1911 and 1953, is the prevalence and prominence that nine hole courses have had throughout the history of the game. Kennedy played about 1/3 of his golf on nine holers. I think it would be good for the game (time and cost) for sure to give more respect to 9-hole and par three courses.

very interesting and revealing. What a brilliant idea whoever had the idea to do it. I understand Billy Payne is now trying to buy their airspace and restrict access (and rumors are circulating that they are installing Patriot missile batteries on rooftops to shoot down future drones.) Not surprised that it is not taken down, although I'm not an expert in copyright law, I believe whoever takes a picture or shoots a video owns the copyright and can therefore publish it. It is different when you attend the Masters (or any event where you buy a ticket), because they limit your rights, thus you can take or publish pictures at the Masters.

The standard take on Nicklaus as an architect is that his courses are too difficult. Ie, he designs them for his game and for big hitters, frustrating a golfer who isn't able to hit a draw with a two-iron off a hanging lie to a green over water. I understand the criticism but think he is misunderstood. Partially, you should play from tees that suit your game. Yea, if you are playing the blue tees but should really be playing the white then his courses will kill you. My own experiences on the 3 and 1/2 of his courses that I have played have been good. I found Mayacama in Santa Rosa to be eminently playable and interesting with a lot of shot variety. I also enjoyed his Cabo del Sol course in Mexico. Really beautiful and challenging without being killer. The same for Muirfield Village, which I think he would call his masterpiece. Jack is not a fan of uphill shots and the thing that makes Muirfield interesting is that there are almost no uphill shots to greens, they virtually all play down hill. The par 5 holes at Muirfield Village are especially good holes. I also enjoyed Sebonack which he designed with Tom Doak. If I understood it right Nicklaus did most of the tee to green work and Doak did the greens. The course is worth going out of your way to play. He doesn't get as much love as the minimalist architects like Coore/Crenshaw and Doak who are obviously in vogue, but Jack's courses I believe will stand the test of time.

Fair point, tough to compare between eras, but I still think that number of majors won has generally become over-rated relative to others factors. Stated another way. If you had your choice, which would you pick: winning only once, in a major and have your name on a trophy forever and make $3 million dollars; or never win, but finish top 10 scores of times and make $50 million playing golf in your career. Since presumably golfers do this for a living, I'd pick the latter every time. Majors are important for sure, but going back to the original question, I think they have taken on a super-charged importance in the Tiger era.

I would say yes, Majors have become overly emphasized vs. other statistics. This is attributable to two things, first: Jack Nicklaus defined them as such and Tiger validated it as a goal to be matched and surpassed. I think total victories is important, total top 10 finishes, percentage of tournaments a golfer enters and wins, and more importantly money earned is super important. After all, these guys do this to make a living and if you are earning a lot of money that's a good measuring stick. After all, a century from now, with 100 more names on the Wanamaker Trophy and Claret Jug, will people really emphasize the winners so much? Hard to say, but if history is any guide, the measuring stick will likely be different. Case in point, in 1930 the four tournaments with the most prestige that Jones captured were the respective opens and amateurs. Your family, will however, remember for generations if you made $100 million playing the game, because they can live off the trust funds and lie on the beach drinking cocktails. The second reason they have become overly emphasized is the media. 24 hour golf channels, scores on on-line media outlets, golf magazines. Hyping them up attracts eyeballs and dollars, thus the need to emphasize how important the majors are. This unintentionally diminishes everything else, many of which are just as interesting or important: the walker cup, amateur championship, collegiate golf, women's golf, etc.

As Eeyore used to say, "Thanks for noticing." Kennedy's story is indeed amazing. He played between 1911 and 1953 and did most of his travel by train and then would take a taxi to the course and walk it. The breadth of courses he played was stunning. He played a lot of nine hole courses, munis, and courses with sand greens. He was a founding member of Winged Foot and that gave him good connections so he was also able to play at some of the best courses like Cypress Point, Pine Valley, Riviera, Baltusrol, Garden City, etc. He lived in New York City and was able to play 39 courses in the city, most of which have disappeared including those designed by Tillinghast, MacKenzie and Raynor. Personally, I thinks his most impressive accomplishment was playing Augusta three months after it opened. The other cool thing about his journey is the record he left. He donated all his scorecards to the USGA and they house them in their library and archives. I looked at many of them and they tell an interesting history. There are cards with half-par holes, segregated courses and many for courses which no longer exist. Almnost all the cards have a stymie measurement or gauge on them. The book's title comes from a 1935 article in the New York Sun where they gave him the nickname of "Golf's Lou Gehrig"