Can anyone at Colonial tell me

[oldscribe]

Think there will ever be a day when the Tournament officials make the decision to move the Colonial Tournament to another course to keep up with change in golf technology?I know it would lbe be strange.Kind of like "The Cotton Bowl" game not being played at The Cotton Bowl.

I would hope that eventually the USGA would grow a pair and begin limiting some of the technological ``progress'' before ALL courses older than 10 years become pitch and putt courses......that would change things a mite....but there are other changes since the 50s-60s....players are stronger, in better shape, have full-time swing and physical gurus, etc., because of the big money now available ( I can recall when Colonial's purse ``soared" to $100,000 to keep up with other almost-major tournaments....that was about the time there was no more true ``invitational" to it, because the players, and their agents like Mark McCormick, took over the game).

 

[Dogfrog]

In answer to the original question: 1. work along the Trinity in the 1960s-70s made the course 2-3 shots easier. It aint the same layout it was in the 1950s-early 60s; 2. Lack of wind (calm early Thursday when those 62s were shot); 3. Yes, the rough should be allowed to grow another inch or so; 4. Go back to the equipment they used in the Hogan era and winners would shoot maybe 5-6 under par for 72 holes instead of 20 under. This from someone who covered the tourney 1962-82 and saw the changes from No. 1 and No. 4 take a toll.

OS, when did the major course changes due to rerouting the Trinity happen? The major flood was back in 49 because my parents lost everything in that flood. Did they do the river work immediately after the flood or did they wait until the 60's? It was either 12 or 13 that was changed in the 60's because I remember as a young kid seeing the par 3 that looked like a shot over a deep ravine. 13 is a great hole, but it doesn't look as tough as (either 12 or 13) from before the changes.

 

[InterestedObserver]

OS, when did the major course changes due to rerouting the Trinity happen? The major flood was back in 49 because my parents lost everything in that flood. Did they do the river work immediately after the flood or did they wait until the 60's? It was either 12 or 13 that was changed in the 60's because I remember as a young kid seeing the par 3 that looked like a shot over a deep ravine. 13 is a great hole, but it doesn't look as tough as (either 12 or 13) from before the changes.

The levies were built in the mid 50's. The biggest changes were to 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

13 was changed again at a later date (maybe around 1980) moving the tee box to the south side of the pond. Originally, 13 had the Trinity in play, but no pond.

 

[Annoying Group of 20]

I knew my golf career was coming to an abrupt end my freshman year when I played Colonial with teammate Ted Soule. Ted could bomb it and had short irons into every green, while I was slugging it out with mid-irons.

-15 seems pretty typical for PGA winners today. Tighten up those fairways and keep it dry and windy and the winner is single digits under par.

 

[InterestedObserver]

I would hope that eventually the USGA would grow a pair and begin limiting some of the technological ``progress'' before ALL courses older than 10 years become pitch and putt courses......that would change things a mite....but there are other changes since the 50s-60s....players are stronger, in better shape, have full-time swing and physical gurus, etc., because of the big money now available ( I can recall when Colonial's purse ``soared" to $100,000 to keep up with other almost-major tournaments....that was about the time there was no more true ``invitational" to it, because the players, and their agents like Mark McCormick, took over the game).

As much as technology plays a role in equipment and training, the biggest change is never really talked about: agronomy.

The courses the Tour players play today are manicured to a level that couldn't be experienced several years ago. Back when Hogan was winning events, part of the reason it was so important to hit fairways was because the rough was truly "rough". It wasn't longer bermuda, but was rather a mix of all types of grasses and weeds. I know that back during those times, Colonial was covered in St Augustine and clover. Today, it's Tif 419 and some fescue, all mowed to exact heights. The greens are shaved to levels not possible before, and rolled to a smoothness never seen 40 years ago.

These guys play golf in Utopia with absolutely perfect conditions. Colonial played 2.5 strokes easier the last 4 days than it will in a month.

However, wind is the equalizer and something Colonial has lacked for several years. This weekend showed that as the scoring average was 70.5 on Saturday and higher on Sunday (don't have that stat yet). With any rough at all, you'd have seen scores soar even more.

The Tour wants winners to have scores between 12 and 15 under, no matter the venue. Look at the scores every week and that's what you'll see in most cases. Colonial could easily be set up in a manner that would equate to higher scores. From my 4 days on the course, I doubt they ever played it at more than 6,850 yards even though the actual length is 7,200 yards.

That bit of rain helped the greens soften which really helped on Thursday and Friday. As one commentator said yesterday "Thankfully these greens are soft because if they hardened up, the players would never finish". The lay out is fine and is set up for what the Tour wants. I'd hardly call it obsolete.

 

[mrhornedfrog]

Glad to see Colonial play like Colonial Sat and Sun.

 

[gohornedfrogs]

Think there will ever be a day when the Tournament officials make the decision to move the Colonial Tournament to another course to keep up with change in golf technology?I know it would lbe be strange.Kind of like "The Cotton Bowl" game not being played at The Cotton Bowl.

The short answer is no.

Colonial essentially owns the event -- it's set up through a non-profit called Colonial Country Club Charities. And although it's a legitimate, ethical business (unlike some of the bowl games) and gives about $6 million to charity each year, it is, for the most part, run by Colonial members.

The only scenario I could see them giving it up would be if the tournament lost its title sponsor (Crowne Plaza is renewed through 2015) and the event started losing money. At that time, I would think the people at Colonial would just let the tournament business dissolve. Of course, someone new could come in, start a non-profit, find a title sponsor willing to spend $7 million a year, and find a golf course that can not only meet the standards of the PGA Tour, but have an infrastructure and space available for 25,000+ spectators, parking, corporate hospitality venues, and space for vendors to set up concessions, equipment, television compound, etc. among many other things. Quite frankly, I don't think there is another course in Fort Worth that can meet those demands, and unless there is someone out there with more money than brains who is willing to build one, I think it's a very risky proposition in today's golf business climate to build one in anticipation of an event.

But really, the key there is the title sponsor. If Crowne Plaza ducks out after 2015 and they can't find anyone to replace them, why would another Title Sponsor be willing to put up that kind of money on a new event at a new course when they could just do it on one with 75+ years of PGA Tour history on its side?

 

[gohornedfrogs]

As much as technology plays a role in equipment and training, the biggest change is never really talked about: agronomy.

Correct. And First Tee had it right about the green complexes at Colonial being fairly easy. Today, about the only defense you can put up to keep scores from going low is to make the greens hard, fast and with more extreme undulations. It all starts right there. When those conditions are in place, distance control on iron shots (and the overall quality of those shots) is much more meaningful, which then means that chipping becomes more a part of the game, and then putting becomes more difficult.

For a little perspective...the USGA has in recent years made some drastic adjustments (for them) to rough heights at the U.S. Open. The days of 5 inch primary rough are over. They now have a graduated rough approach that starts at about 2 1/2 - 3 inches, and gets to as much as 5 inches as you get further away from the fairway. Yet scores haven't really been any lower because they've compensated by upping the green speeds / firmness and creating run-off areas around the greens that allow the ball to get further away from the hole when a player misses a green. Oakmont in 2007 was a prime example of that. The rough wasn't that tall, but the winning score was +5.

 

[InterestedObserver]

Correct. And First Tee had it right about the green complexes at Colonial being fairly easy. Today, about the only defense you can put up to keep scores from going low is to make the greens hard, fast and with more extreme undulations. It all starts right there. When those conditions are in place, distance control on iron shots (and the overall quality of those shots) is much more meaningful, which then means that chipping becomes more a part of the game, and then putting becomes more difficult.

For a little perspective...the USGA has in recent years made some drastic adjustments (for them) to rough heights at the U.S. Open. The days of 5 inch primary rough are over. They now have a graduated rough approach that starts at about 2 1/2 - 3 inches, and gets to as much as 5 inches as you get further away from the fairway. Yet scores haven't really been any lower because they've compensated by upping the green speeds / firmness and creating run-off areas around the greens that allow the ball to get further away from the hole when a player misses a green. Oakmont in 2007 was a prime example of that. The rough wasn't that tall, but the winning score was +5.

The only way to really firm up the greens at Colonial would be to take out the bent grass and put in bermuda. Firm bermuda greens would make the course dramtically tougher for the Tour players. Problem is, the Tour is only in town 1 week per year and having really firm greens would make the course way too difficult for the majority of the members.

 

[oldscribe]

The levies were built in the mid 50's. The biggest changes were to 8, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

13 was changed again at a later date (maybe around 1980) moving the tee box to the south side of the pond. Originally, 13 had the Trinity in play, but no pond.

I'm sure 8 was changed in the 60s (it was after I started covering the tourney in 1962) and 13 changed in the late 1970s or early 80s (I last was at the tourney in 1982 and 13 had been changed then). I think 12 and 14 were slightly altered in the early 60s or even late 50s. If there are any longtime Colonial members on here they may correct my thinking about dates. My understanding was that the river was almost re-routed for flood control and the great #5 hole barely escaped.

 

[Limp Lizard]

From personal experience I can tell you that today's equipment is much, much easier to use. I am 63 and I hit the ball much farther and straighter than I did 30 years ago. Todays balls fly much, much straighter.

Actually, all I can attest to is the ball technology, since I play with old clubs. I took a break from golf about 10 years ago and was amazed at how straight and far the balls go (at least 10% further). Plus they are so much more durable. The old premium wound balata balls of 40+ years ago were very fragile, plus would curve wildly with the slight miss-hit. When the solid and/or durable balls came around in the 70's they were almost impossible to stop on a green. I guess the only bad things about today's balls is that it is much harder to purposely hit a big slice or hook to get out of trouble...but you are in trouble much less, too.

I plan on getting new clubs this year and then can attest to their worth. But from what I have heard, they really help, too (my clubs are 20+ years old).

Seems like I remember a major change to Colonial in the late 60's, especially to #'s 7, 8 and 13. I remember #13 with a huge chasm to the green, and over 220 yards long. Thank God they left #5 untouched! Plus the Tour started taking over the courses and preparing them easier back in the 70's or 80's...too much much crying from the pros about rough, etc. Of course you can still hear the whining every year at the U. S. Open. At least, for the first time in years, the winds got up this weekend and made Colonial play a lot tougher. Consider the winner was +2 this weekend. Colonial's defenses are based a lot on a good breeze.

Still, I think that all they have to get scores back to normal without screwing with the good courses is make the Tour play with 1960 technology. But, of course it would never happen because the golf industry is built on innovation and weekend golfers would want to play what the pro's play. Or at least keep the technology where it is, especially with the balls, otherwise I will be hitting 300 yard drives when I am 90!

 

[2314@work]

Says the guy that has to torture words to restate his point when the entire premise of his argument (US Open ratings) was undermined with the fact that the Masters blows it away in ratings. You and 5 other people on this board may like watching guys chop it out sideways and play for bogey, but the majority of the country does not.

see next post

 

[2314@work]

Let me preface this by saying that if I had it my way, every PGA Tour course would be set up like a U.S. Open each week.

However, your statement about fans preferring to see pros play tougher course does not pass the test on several levels. The PGA Tour is no slouch at marketing. They understand their fans and their product. More importantly, they understand their own constituents -- those who actually play on their Tour. And they know that if they make the courses too difficult every week, there will be a backlash from the players, who have options to play worldwide and accept appearance fees as well as prize money almost on a weekly basis.

What's happened at Colonial, in particular, is that technology has rendered the course obsolete for many of the best players in the game -- possibly more so than any other course they play. In the days of balata golf balls, where 7,200 yards was a long course, Colonial was a monster because not only did you have to hit it far, you had to be able to hit draws and fades at will. Now, since the ball doesn't spin as much off the driver, players can't hit those shots as easily. So they instead hit 3-woods and hybrids off the tee, yet are left with about the same distance (or less) for their approach shots as they were pre-1995. This is why the field at Colonial has taken such a huge hit in terms of its quality.

Ugh, I think you are right and so is PO Frog.
I am glad I don't fit into that wimpy golf fan category. And I hope I never watch golf with one of those idiot fans described above.
My point is that REAL sports fans - those who thrive on seeing top competition at the highest levels and toughest degrees of difficulty (if it wasn't hard everyone would be doing it) - love to see golf where the winner is over par.
I also think boring driver-wedge-5-foot putt golf will eventually turn off mainstream fans. I rarely watch any golf that isn't Colonial, The Players or a major because of this.