Joe Zwickl
Side note. Whose career would you rather have. Speith or ZJ?
Link to commentJoe Zwickl
I will never understand how a golfer who has had way more bad years than good holds so much weight in fans eyes. He had 3 good years and lost it. He hasnt been relevant in a long time yet people feel the need to hold on to the past. Sure he won the masters and us open in the same year but in my eyes he holds the same stature as Zatch Johnson.
Link to commentJoseph LaMagna
Oh, also, I should follow up just a little bit: the premise of your post is what makes a golf course bad. I don't necessarily think the golf course is "bad." As you've noted, I've never been there. I think - at least currently - it isn't of the quality to host a professional golf tournament on the most competitive Tour in the world, but again, happy to re-evaluate that this summer.
Still doesn't mean it's bad. It could be delightful place to spend a day. It just doesn't pose a significant challenge to the best players in the world (from my perspective).
Link to commentJoseph LaMagna
Hi Brian,
I really appreciate this post. Very thorough and well-reasoned. When I do the course tiers each year, I hope for some intelligent pushback. Thank you for providing that.
"Unfortunately, A Golf Course" is admittedly a harsh category title, so I understand taking exception to it. You've given me some new things to watch at this upcoming Canadian Open, especially with what you've outlined on 16. Also, I like that the philosophy wasn't to make an artificially difficult golf course with a bunch of thick rough and penal hazards.
My dislike for the course the first time around came from finding very little strategic intrigue, especially from tee to green. It's a wide golf course with little penalty for a miss off the tee with relatively large greens. The first time I took my measurements of the course, I immediately thought "Oh yeah, this will not challenge them." And I do stand by that after watching the first edition.
If conditions were firm and windy, the golf course would provide a sterner test, though I'm not sure it'd still be especially challenging or how often we should expect firm, windy conditions. I'm sure you can speak to the Toronto weather much better than I can. With respect to the DataGolf chart, I think you'd find similar(-ish) results for Valhalla, another venue I'm not particularly fond of.
I wouldn't have tiered TPC Toronto as low as I did if it weren't for the cookie-cutter bunkers you acknowledged. I understand the golf course isn't played from Google Earth, but I've only grown to further appreciate the importance of variety as I've seen more golf courses, and I have a hard time reconciling the repeated use of the same-styled bunkers everywhere on that golf course. That played a significant role in how I evaluated the course.
Regardless, I will watch this upcoming Canadian Open with an open mind and am happy to upgrade the venue if it should be. I sort of expect more of the same from last year, which was a lot of relatively thoughtless bombing away off the tee and uninspiring approach shots into soft greens. I have been wrong about courses before though, and I respect Ian Andrew's design philosophy, so maybe we won't be too far apart after seeing the tournament the next time around.
Appreciate your post. Sincerely!
Link to commentStephen Gronsbell
Love your long form and narrative stuff. Your passion shines through everything you do, but on a personal level, do you get more excited to cover greatness/redemption stories (e.g. Tiger, Scottie, Rory, etc.) or new or unexpected stories (Harman, Spaun, etc.). Narratives aside, what gets your creative juices flowing more?
Link to commentBrian Decker
Thanks Garrett, I appreciate the reply. I don’t mean to be entirely dismissive of the bunker shape critique, though I do believe they look much better when actually playing the course than from the air, and will continue to look less similar over time. But I can’t really argue about the sameness of their shape. I want to be careful about not speaking on behalf of Ian here, because as you know, the man knows a thing or two about good looking bunkers. Speaking for myself, I think it actually looks kind of cool in some places (the corridor up nos. 6 and 4), but certainly jarring in others (18 fairway, especially looking at them from right of the tee). I will say the renovation was completed very quickly (August-November 2023), which necessitated certain efficiencies. Could we have done the project with a clearer mandate, and is the bunker sameness hard to look past? That is absolutely a fair critique, and we own that. Do those make it a bad golf course? That is subject I’ve tried to pick at here, and I really appreciate the earnest discussion.
Link to commentGarrett Morrison
Appreciate this thoughtful and thorough post, Brian. I particularly like and find myself persuaded by your analysis of the 16th hole. I'm also glad that you acknowledged your potential bias, given your role as director of marketing at TPC Toronto. But I don't get the sense that you're being insincere. The depth of your defense of Ian's design work does indicate genuine passion.
I didn't watch last year's tournament, and I haven't looked at the shot trails, so I don't really have an opinion on the course's merits. But the one part of your writeup I bumped on was your dismissal of the critiques of the repetitive bunker shapes. Yes, obviously the course is meant to be experienced on the ground, not Google Earth. But ground-level images seem to confirm that the cashew-type bunker shapes at TPC Toronto are quite repetitive, even bizarrely so. I have very, very high regard for Ian Andrews's intelligence and design chops, so I'm not inclined to be derisive about this. I'm mostly just curious: why were the bunkers designed and built in this manner? Was it an artistic choice? Or a practical one, allowing for simpler construction and maintenance?
For me, repetitiveness is indeed a key characteristic of many bad courses. But shaping is just one consideration. Variety in hole types, shot types, routing, topography, and greens is important as well. Probably more important.
Bad courses often lack an identifiable, well-thought-through philosophy of hazard positioning. They are sometimes extremely difficult for average players without posing an interesting challenge to skilled players.
I'm most angered by courses that waste whatever natural assets they have. I think golf architects are obligated to "do no harm" to good land.
Bad courses might have poor drainage design, causing unnecessary costs/headaches.
Typically I don't find myself inclined to call amateurishly designed courses "bad." True badness, for me, comes from highly professional architecture that lacks a connection to or respect for the spirit of the game.
Link to commentGarrett Morrison
Appreciate this thoughtful and thorough post, Brian. I particularly like and find myself persuaded by the analysis by your analysis of the 16th hole. I'm also glad that you acknowledged your potential bias, given your role as director of marketing at TPC Toronto. But I don't get the sense that you're being insincere. The depth of your defense of Ian's design work does indicate genuine passion.
I didn't watch last year's tournament, and I haven't looked at the shot trails, so I don't really have an opinion on the course's merits. But the one part of your writeup I bumped on was your dismissal of the critiques of the repetitive bunker shapes. Yes, obviously the course meant to be experienced on the ground, not Google Earth. But ground-level images seem to confirm that the cashew-type bunker shapes at TPC Toronto are quite repetitive, even bizarrely so. I have very, very high regard for Ian Andrews's intelligence and design chops, so I'm not inclined to be derisive about this. I'm mostly just curious: why were the bunkers designed and built in this manner? Was it an artistic choice? Or a practical one, allowing for simpler construction and maintenance?
For me, repetitiveness is indeed a key characteristic of many bad courses. But shaping is just one consideration. Variety in hole types, shot types, routing, topography, and greens is important as well. Probably more important.
Bad courses often lack an identifiable, well-thought-through philosophy of hazard positioning. They are sometimes extremely difficult for average players without posing an interesting challenge to skilled players.
I'm most angered by courses that waste whatever natural assets they have. I think golf architects are obligated to "do no harm" to good land.
Bad courses might have poor drainage design, causing unnecessary costs/headaches.
Typically I don't find myself inclined to call amateurishly designed courses "bad." True badness, for me, comes from highly professional architecture that lacks a connection to or respect for the spirit of the game.
Link to commentBrian Decker
Very few things make me happier than taking some interested folks around the course to explain what I’m talking about. I try to show course raters around personally as much as I can for that reason. Be careful what you wish for, though - I don’t really stop talking!
Re: Technical goals of the renovation, that is indeed what we were aiming for - at least partially. We started with an extremely wide resort course and the mission was to make it a credible Tour course. The other part though is, it’s a public course and we want people to see it and say ‘I want to play there.’ The early returns were certainly good, based on tee time and event demand. We’ll see how the reaction continues to evolve after this year’s event. I’d really like if we didn’t have a spring from hell and wildfire smoke hanging around the whole week, because I think the course can show a lot better than it did in ‘25 (and even getting to that point was a huge achievement by the turf team).
Link to commentBrian Decker
Hey thanks! Yes, the aerial broadcast shots did elicit some commentary on the sameness of the bunkers. It doesn’t help that the course is on a relatively narrow piece of land, so those aerial shots always show a few holes at the same time. I will say that we are expecting the bunkers to soften and adjust their shape over time. I am making sure to take lots of same-angle photos yearly to see whether that is indeed the case. We were also initially expecting 2027, not 2025, to be our first Canadian Open so the world got a look at them in a bit more ‘raw’ of a state than expected.
Link to commentWill Knights
Only reason I haven't yet is because I didn't play it during my days on property. Very cool place though. Will be done this year!
Link to commentDale Miller
I would be interested in reading a full course profile for this course!
Link to commentMatthew Schoolfield
I'm definitely not trying to criticize Joseph here. In fact, in all honesty, I'm trying to have it both ways. I'm quite certain I would probably not enjoy TPC Toronto much. It's not designed for a player like me. It's not the type of aesthetic I like. And finally, it's a "championship"-style course, which I generally don't have much fun at, by design.
Still I can appreciate that the post, because it's pointing to a very specific goal for the course which comes with what seems to be reasonable data. I think that stuff is super technical and interesting, and it would make me want to go walk the course with Brian to better understand what he's talking about. If that technical stuff was the goal and it got the result they were seeking, kudos on execution. On the other hand, if the PGA Tour fans don't like the way it plays, looks, and feels, then yea, that seems like a missed opportunity, because that has to be part of the meta-level goal of the course as a tour destination.
Link to commentMatthew Schoolfield
I'm definitely not trying to criticize Joseph here. In fact, in all honesty, I'm trying to have it both ways. I'm quite certain I would probably not enjoy TPC Toronto much. It's not designed for a player like me. It's not the type of aesthetic I like. And finally, it's a "championship"-style course, which I generally don't have much fun at, by design.
Still I enjoyed the read is that it's pointing to a very specific goal of the course which comes with what seems to be reasonable data. I think that stuff is super technical and interesting, and it would make me want to go walk the course with Brian to better understand what he's talking about. If that technical stuff was the goal and it got the result they were seeking, kudos on execution. On the other hand, if the PGA Tour fans don't like the way it plays, looks, and feels, then yea, that seems like a missed opportunity, because that has to be part of the meta-level goal of the course as a tour destination.
Link to commentMike Clayton
Stephanie,
I'm probably around those dates. Lloyd Cole has a concert in Melbourne on the 17th - if you're into his music. He also has one on Hobart - I think added just so he can play 7MB!
We pretty much live at St AB now - a mile down the road from the course - so let's play on the 25th. I assuming you're playing at Portsea?
0417 853 835.Give me a call when you get here.
Link to commentBrian Decker
I have always enjoyed whenever your work wades into the realm of media criticism, since you’ve worked at both legacy media and independent shops. How has your ability to develop relationships with subjects and sources changed, if at all, since being at FEG and NLU vs. The Sun or ESPN?
Link to commentGarrett Morrison
Re: #2 — in Joseph's defense, he thinks and talks about the "game design" aspects of a course very frequently.
Link to commentMike Ihm
Its a part of the package, we added Eden also. Everyone Ive ever talked to who has played it, including brother and buddy say it is not even close to a 0. Hoping its not wet.
Link to commentBen Denison
Piggybacking to say that making a course interesting architecturally and challenging to pros these days is so difficult (and hamstrung by rules enforced by tour on course setup) that I do not pity anyone trying to do it. From watching, I'd take Toronto over Minneapolis any day, though!
Link to commentBen Denison
Make sure to add the famous Doak 0 when you're in Scotland!
Link to comment
