[Brad Klein]

All week I wondered whether the raised mowing heights on the 18th hole would have an effect on the outcome of the US Open. Maybe it was nerves that caused all three leaders coming to the 72nd hole at 5-under to three putt - two of them missing outting inside 2 feet.

But I wonder whether the USGA will be haunted by the prospect of having to tinker with fertilizer and mowing heights on the 18th hole to compensate for a design flaw. USGA championship agronomist Tim Moraghan, superintendent John Szylinski and architect Keith Foster had two years to figure out that A1/A4 bentgrass is too slick for greens sloping at 5 percent and approches as severe as the 18th. They had a year after regrassing to "test drive" the car before this week, and all of a sudden on Monday of tournament week they realize they have a problem.

So the golfers have to adjust to a green that at the last minute was made marginally slower - jury-rigged to make up for a design flaw. You think that has anything to do with Sunday afternoon's theatre of the absurd on that last green?

[Jeff_Mingay]

Very interesting point, Brad.

And, while we're on the subject of Southern Hills, I must add that the course's appearance on TV, in general, didn't make me think of Perry Maxwell.

It seems to me that Maxwell's golf architecture was much more natural appearing than today's Southern Hills... just reference his work at Praries Dunes and Crystal Downs, for example.

There were some classic quotes from Keith Foster in the golf magazines, about taking a backseat to Maxwell throughout his recent renovation work.  But, those tightly tree-lined (and narrow) fairway and the Augusta National-esque bunkers we saw this week, again, didn't remind me, at all, of Perry Maxwell.

I mean, those bunkers are plain and simply ugly! Imagine, they're recently reconstructed?!?!

I'm unfamiliar with Southern Hills' design lineage, but I suspect that what we see there today is more a product of a few RTJ renovations over the years than of Maxwell's original work.

[peter_p]

I don't think so having just watched the news replay. JM said early in the broadcast that the putts couldn't be read with that hole location. Both putts did the same thing, so I think Cink and Goosen made the same mistake.
Agreed, the problem should have been caught earlier. Do you know if they take greens to Open speed on a trial basis beforehand?

[Ran Morrissett]

Heck, Brad, what do you expect from the same governing body that says that technology is in check as Phil M. hits a wedge into the 490 yard 16th?

[Craig_Rokke]

Jeff-
Funny you should say that about the bunkers. I tuned in today for the first time, and kept noticing them. They sure looked bland to me, but I guess I was sort of questioning my assessment of them. They almost had a too-perfectly-formed artificiality to them. Many of them didn't appear to be much of a deterent, either.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Brad,

I've been having the same thoughts you expressed, and after watching Mark Brooks' second putt on 18 hobble to the hole, I remembered how A4 putts when its not cut low enough. It stinks.  

I just can't comprehend how the problem on 9 and 18 was not detected last week by the USGA staff as the tournament neared. Then again, I saw first hand their mindless setups in 1998 at Riviera and Olympic and you see who they seek for architectural advice, so maybe it's not a surprise. I hope they step up and take the blame for not having seen this coming sooner, as Southern Hills, John Szlinski and Keith Foster were at their disposal for the Open and merely doing their job. But being the USGA, they won't.

Maybe something positive will come from this. Perhaps clubs hoping to have a tournament while also maintaining the character of their classic architecture will stop using grasses ill-suited for the contour in greens. That A-4 stuff.
Geoff

[T_MacWood]

The design is not flawed. If anything is flawed, its the new age grass and set up. I didn't see anything odd or extraordinary happen (like the 10th at Shinnecock or 18 at Olympic) on that green during the tournament, that is until the last group. I don't recall many three putts on 18 and there seemed to be as many one putts as any other green out there.

The carnage with the last group was an example of a mental blackout, those were two of the ugliest looking strokes in golf history--neither put was even close. I can't even watch the replays, its too painful, I don't think they even got a piece of the cup from two feet.

The 18th at SH proved to be one of the most dramatic finishing holes in championship golf--maybe the most dramatic. I thought it played beautifully as a climax to a US Open. I agree it is perplexing that they only discovered a problem the week of the championship, but this ain't the 18th at Olympic and I don't believe it had a bearing on the outcome.

[Paul Richards]

ran:

just chiming in with what you said.
the announcers in today's telecast mentioned
that Sergio his a driver and a 2-iron to the
642-yard par 5.

someone please try to tell me that technology
isn't changing the game.  

then go see the posts by ron prichard on the
subject!

[RJ_Daley]

I don't think that the variation of maintenance practice-mowing schedule on 9 and 18 was the determining factor.  They were just lousy putts.  As for the quality of the putting surface for A-4 when it is not cut extreemly low, I am guesing that it isn't the height of the cut that they were trying to alter on tournament days by letting it go without mowing for 2 days earlier in week. I think it was density of the shoot growth that became more puffy and slower with a lapse in regular mowing for a couple of days. I think they actually mowed them to the same height as all the other greens on tournament play days.  Am I right on that supers who look in here?

I would rather concentrate my critique on the constricted fairways and corridors into greens by overhanging trees as the most annoying aspect to me.  

[TEPaul]

I completely agree with Tom MacWood. The design is not flawed.

If there is someone to blame for the green speeds, obviously it the USGA but I sure wouldn't really blame them for what happened to Cink and Goosen (and Brooks). They know how to adjust to #9 & #18 and they knew what the USGA had done on those greens to correct an unfortunate situation earlier in the week.

We all know that the USGA WILL BE blamed for causing those 3 putts though. Again, I agree completely with Tom MacWood; that was the 72nd hole of the US Open and that was pressure related totally!

Goosen looked like a cool customer during tournament week but I guarantee he didn't look like his normal cool self standing and waiting to putt on the 72nd green--review your tapes on that!!

The USGA, however, should never have let the general green speeds get so fast that #9 & #18 had to be dealt with like they were. They probably should have brought the whole course into line speed-wise with #9 & #18. Somebody should tell them about the Steve Curry method of greenspeed barometoring!

It was unfortunate and dumb of the USGA to basically have gone to two different green speeds but it's going too far to say that caused Brooks, Cink and Goosen to do what they did.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Why do you guys keep on saying that this US Open was at Southern Hills???

When did they rename Southern Hills, "Sahalle?"

It looks as if this Open has laid the egg of a Golden Goosen. (Pun Intended)

[Mike Ventola]

The USGA says "the stimp meter is to keep greens consistent" then they have a National Championship where 9 & 18 are different speeds.  
I feel it did effected the tournament.

They also use the stimp meter to calculate the difficulty of greens for slope ratings, something they say it is not to be used for....

Does the USGA have to many conflicting agendas?

[Tom_Egan]

Re: the missed short putts on the last hole.

A4, Z28, X100.  What's the difference?  There's no green surface in the history of the world that could have accommodated those shaky nerves and open putter blades.

The moral of this story is the usual:  If you want to beat up on the USGA, you WILL find a reason.  Eureka!  They're not perfect! Stop the presses! If it hadn't been this and the rounded bunkers and the encroaching trees and the laxity on equipment restrictions, it would have been the parking or the price of bottled water.  The name of the game is, "Let's find all the faults we can and overlook our enjoyment of the good aspects of the competition."  

[Paul Turner]

It was all nerves and had very little to do with the green speed.  

TEPaul

I also noticed how tense Goosen looked, standing to the side and watching Cink miss that tiddler.  Where was his caddy? I really hope he wins today.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jeff,

We have lots of Maxwell courses here in Dallas (Press, not Perry) including Oak Cliff, Brookhaven, and Dornick Hills, his home dairy farm in Ardmore Ok, and the bunkers look exactly like SH. All Keith did was deepen the bunkers to make them more penal, and I did see a few instances where the bunker play was as or more difficult to get to the pin.

Incidentally, I have redone some Maxwell courses, including the second nine at Dornick Hills (where I was instructed to match the front nine redo by Nugent) and all had too severe for today's contours on 9 and 18. So, the even more severely contoured green on the home holes may have been a Maxwell signature.

Jeff

[Jim H]

People rake away those 24 - 32 inchers all the time and give em to their buddies, to the point where the recreational golfer might think they're easy good.  Even at the pro level those putts are not easy good.  Add the intensity of the 72nd hole of the US Open and you had putts missed because of pressure, not agronomy.

To bolster the agronomy argument though, the recent GolfWorld article on the Southern Hills greens mentioned that the 9th and 18th were treated differently following the vandalism to the greens a couple years ago.  I believe the article mentions that most of the on course greens were completely rebuilt, with new soils mix.  Nine and 18 were not vandalized, perhaps they were just reseeded.  So not only were they cut to a different height, they may have had an entirely different feel than other greens out on the course.

[THuckaby2]

Jeff did Canterbury outside of Denver?  COOL!  I've played a Brauer!

JB - I really liked that course, very fun.  My buddy made a double eagle there, short par 5 late in the round... maybe 14 or so?  It's been a few years.  

Anyway, great work there - loved it.

One learns something every day.

TH

[Mike Ventola]

Nice comment Tom

But it is fun to poke at the top

Cheers
MWV

[Jeff_Brauer]

Redanman,

Didn't get to see Rolling Hills.  Like lots of old courses, clubhouses here seem to be in a corner, rather than in the center. And yes, on a high hill - at least as high as they get here in Dallas. Your observation about 9 and 18 may confirm my suspicions about severe final greens.  I guess it makes sense that a guy famous for contours would save his best for last.  

My sources (including Keith) tell me that he did not rebuild ANY green at SH - they simply stripped turf and thatch and reseeded.  Started in August, finished in September.  So, he left the contours as Maxwell intended. It would only be possible to shave at most an inch using this method.....

Food for thought - what would Brad's criticism have been if Keith had taken it upon himself to soften the Maxwell classic? Heresy?

Some more thoughts on Maxwell - When I remodelled Brookhaven and Dornoch Hills, the bunkers were not only unnattractive, but typically totally blocked the view of the putting surface, creating an uncomfortable feeling on the approach.  Also, there is almost always one left and one right, sometimes augmented in the back, but not creating any real strategy, and certainly not a variety of strategies. Lastly, some sources said he would casually remark during greens construction " give me a three mounder here, a two mounder there...." Classic architecture?

May have told you this story, but Prairie Dunes called Press in Denver to ask him if it was wise to soften 12 green. On a speaker phone, we could hear him counting off the holes in his mind until he got to 12, when he said "Oh, I never liked that one!"

Great to see some more of you have gotten to play my courses, or discover that you have! Sometimes it feels like I must do most of my work on Mars or something.... As you can see from the bunkering at Canterberry (note the odd spelling) I am not much of a Maxwell bunker fan! How did he get from MacKenzie's Crystal Downs style to Southern Hills, unless he was severely influenced by the depression and the realities of maintenance costs?

Jeff

[T_MacWood]

Jeff
Do you consider the work of Perry and Press interchangable?

Based on Southern Hills, I too thought Perry's bunkering was pretty boring, especialy compared to his work with MacKenzie at Crystal Downs and Michigan. But after playing Prarie Dunes, I began to wonder if I might be mistaken--like judging MacKenzie's bunkers by ANGC.

So I began to look into it and after finding old photographs of Southern Hills, Prarie Dunes and Old Town, I discovered his bunkering was far from boring and what is seen today at SH is not representative--those bunkers have been altered over the years.

Although his bunkers are not nearly as bold as say MacKenzie or Thomas, they were irregular in shape with subtle capes and bays, and occasionly a dramatic cape--he was also fond of grassy islands. They were very naturalistic, less defined compared to many of his contemporaries, having rough grasses bleed irregularly into the perimeter, helping to integrate them into their surroundings.

Maxwell's bunkers had unique look that was very appealing--in my mind they appear to be the perfect bunkering style for the Midlands. What is surprising, the architect responsible for restoring his first design--Dornick Hills--would be unaware of his tendencies. Perhaps DH too had been altered drastically over the years or as a first effort it wasn't that good to begin with.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brad,

I'm with Tom MacWood.

I don't think it was a flaw in the design of the green.

Perhaps the choice of grass, made necessary by a substantial act of vandalism, was made more for the membership, than the U.S OPEN.
And, if you view that choice in the long term benefit to the membership, it may far outweigh anY consideration for the U.S. OPEN.

[George Pazin]

Tom MacWood -

Have you ever considering doing a little piece on restoration, good & bad? And then maybe having it evolve into a full book?

I found the old photos in Geoff's Golden Age tremendously appealing, but I thought it would have been neat to go one step further & show the old photos side by side with photos of the current state of the classic courses. The photos may end up being more painful than anything else, but maybe this would serve to better educate everyone.

Maybe you could collaborate with Daniel Wexler & put out Altered Links!

[Scott_Park]

I don't attribute the problems with finishing holes at SH and Oly to bad design, but rather a mismatch of design to mower heighth.

As we all know, when these courses were designed sixty or more years ago, the steep slopes on the greens were tempered by longer grass.  When these old style greens are cut to modern heights, parts of the green become unusable.  Unfortunately, new or "modernized" courses will have to have flatter greens to accomodate the tighter cut.

The real challenge for architects will be to maintain the balance between green speed, interesting contours and usable surface.

[Raymond]

Just before Mark Brooks stroked his first putt at #18 on Sunday they posted a graphic that showed there had only been one three putt on that green for the entire day. So then Brooks, Cink, and Goosen proceeded to three putt. How can you attribute that to anything but nerves. And I truely believe if Cink makes his two footer Goosen would have made his. That sort of thing does get contageous.
That certainly doesn't exonorate the USGA from culpability in not rectifying the problems at 9 and !8 prior to Open Week.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,

Good observation. Even as I was posting, I was thinking that even Prairie Dunes is a Press redo or addition, at least.  And, most of the stuff around Dallas is Press, not Perry. But somehow, all those bunkers have morphed into simple shapes. One thing I have learned from the Maxwell's is that a simple aerial view plan shape can still have a fair amount of character when viewed at ground level.

Regarding DH, we had lots of discussions about what was really at the course. Nugent did the front nine, and really wasn't into any historical preservation. We brought it up, but found out that the club had redone all the greens in house at some point, and pretty much done what they wanted. So, we agreed there was not much point in preserving half the course, since so many changes had been made. So, we completed the modernization.

The most interesting part of the process was that there were still some Maxwell descendents that were club members. They wanted to be sympathetic to the original design, but were actually pretty on board with the concept that golf had changed, and they did not want a museum piece, they wanted a golf course that met their current needs.  So, the idea  of flattening greens (Uncle Perry never mentioned wanting someone to putt off the greens...) became easier to accept, in part because of his relatives.

Not what this group probably wants to hear, but an honest (and probably typical) account of what happened at most clubs in the 60-90's.

Jeff

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()