We are living in an age of rapid development in golf. From equipment and swing techniques to improved psychological help and quality of playing surface, today's golfer has more opportunities to improve performance than ever before. If you are prepared to put the time in you can accurately get clubs and shafts that suit you for optimum results. But are we getting a chance to play better courses?
There is a global attempt in the professional game to make modern and older redesigned courses `Tiger proof' (the US Open would suggest that they have not succeeded). Even the ultimate traditionalists at Augusta National introduced rough to their course, coincidentally the year after Woods annihilated their sacred grounds in 1997. There is no doubt that course designers and redesigners are having their skills challenged greatly by the modern professional with his big straight hitting. Their answer is naturally to produce courses of 7,500 yards with narrow fairways, knee deep rough and unnaturally azure blue water on every other hole. What imagination, where have all the shorter strategically demanding holes gone? If it's not 460 yards with criss-crossed green and greener fairways surrounded by startling white sanded bunkers it's not worth talking about, it seems.
The European Tour arrived at a new venue in South Wales a few weeks ago filled with expectation of the challenge. The talent to play good golf does not necessarily mean that the perceptiveness to distinguish a good course from a goat track follows. The two modern courses that spring to mind as an exception to this are Loch Lomand in Scotland designed (in collaboration with experts) by Tom Weiskopf and The Berliner Sporting Club in Germany designed (also with professional advisers) by Nick Faldo. It's not a coincidence that both of these courses are built on good pieces of golfing land; gently undulating, pleasant surrounding scenery coupled with good soil.
Which leads to the underlying problem with so many new courses that we stumble on throughout our global golfing adventures; attempting the impossible by building courses on land that is not suitable. It is no coincidence that Alister MacKenzie chose excellent pieces of land on which to design his masterpieces like Cypress Point and Royal Melbourne. This is obviously a tougher task as we commence the third millennium. There is a demand for more courses which some may argue is at least being serviced by the abundance of new courses springing up. But in years to come what legacy are we leaving our inheritors? Are they going to rave (in ignorance) about Robert Trent Jones jnr's fiascoes around the globe or are the classics of yesteryear still going to reign supreme?
When the players arrived at Celtic Manor for their first bite at the Welsh cherry there was the usual discussion about the new challenge.
If I was to gauge the mood there was some concern about the undulation of about ten of the holes. Physically the course was extremely demanding. It could be argued that it was not actually designed to walk but more to drive around on that American abomination of the gas cart. Frequently the golfers found themselves gasping for breath on arriving at their golf ball. If you were to go on the thoughts of the golfers as expressed in newspapers and on TV you would be correct in thinking that the Wales Open was being played on an excellent golf course. There is an effective gagging order on the Tour players, if they don't have anything good to say about a venue in public then they are obliged, under tour rules, to say nothing. Criticism is not allowed.
There seems to be an attitude that criticism on Tour is only destructive. Instead of searching questions like `how could we improve this course?' being asked, the numbing question of a bright eyed course owner searching for flattery and not genuine comment tends to be `it's a good course isn't it?'.
No one likes to disappoint a proud owner. If this is so, how are we supposed to improve. The owner of this huge new complex in Wales is Terry Mathews, an electronics billionaire, who is obviously a very clever man, and particularly adept in his selected field. I would doubt if golf is one. Because if you had a modicum of understanding of the game, you would not attempt to build on a piece of land more suited to sheep and goats grazing territory. When Mathews responded to suggested criticism of his new place with `Wentwood Hills is not supposed to be easy. We employed the best designers in the business. They've done about 500 courses so they should know what they are doing by now' he is somewhat missing the point. Trabant built a lot of cars! There is a vast difference between difficult and good. Regarding the Trent Jones', while senior has developed some wonderful courses, junior inherited a good name and not necessarily his father's design talent.
Golf needs people like Mathews. Or should I say it needs his wealth. His views on what determines a good golf course we could live without. But if there is a continued blanket on the opinions of those who should have a fair idea of the merits of sound design principles then how is someone like Mathews going to fulfill his dream of building a great golf course? And how are future generations ever going to distinguish between a championship golf course and fantasy designs that do nothing for the future legacy of golf?
No surprise then that on the same week Celtic Manor opened its bid for the Ryder Cup. Well I think the Ryder Cup and all its recent antics deserve Celtic Manor, because both of them represent the hijacking of the game by big money at the expense of integrity. Golf for sale. Suggested applicants; The highest bidders, no previous golf experience required.
