[Brian_Gracely]

For those of you that thought the course was unfair or improperly setup or any other general gripe, what do you think should have been done to make the course (and tournament) more interesting?  

Would the course have played better if the fairways were 5-10 yards wider but the same firmness?  Or 10-15 yards wider?

Would the course have played better if the greens were running at 9-10' but kept at the same firmness?

Would the course have played better if the greens were running 13-14' but had the same conditioning from Thurs to Sunday?  

Leave the course in the same conditions as Thurs/Friday....if that's even possible considering that the wind changed considerably over the weekend?

Personally, I thought the course (as a whole) was excellent throughout the week.  Sure it had it's difficult spots, but that added variety and identified those that could create the necessary shots.  They all played the same course, some just adapted better than others.  

[Lou_Duran]

Greens a tad softer and running around 10.  Alternatively, greens much more receptive, but running 11 - 12 with pins in more center locations.  Primary rough seemed to be about right.  Intermediate rough seemed to be a better place to hit from than the tight fairways.  One has to wonder about the sand with gravel.  I can't be a money issue (unaccompanied rounds at $300+), so it must be by design.  At least Oakmont did away with its furrows.

[Mike Hendren]

Brian,

How about if the normal June maintenance had been implemented in-house without the influence of the USGA?

It appears to be a golf course that can readily stand on its merits.  

Mike

[A_Clay_Man]

The only aspect I saw that could've been construed as non-sensical, was the green grass rough, protecting fairway bunkers (or any bunker). I don't know if I saw one shot that found a fairway bunker. The inconsistency of that rough, made it playable, but, I still question the need for most of it, on a course with width and so well protected at the green.

[ForkaB]

Great question, Brian.  My answers:

1.  Wider fairways
2.  Wispier rough
3.  Softer fairways
4.  Slower greens
5.  Less rough around the greens and bunkers

The course is great enough to stand on its own two feet, without any outside interference.

You know, back when TE Paul got this bee of "maintenance meld" buzzing around in his bonnet, I asked him specifically if this meant anything different from "firm and fast."  He waffled a bit at the time, but since then has really reverted to the F&F/IMM equivalence.  I don't think that any of us on this site have spent enough time pondering the question as to whether the "ideal" "mainteance meld" could in fact be slower and softer, under some circumstances.  I think that SH 2004, may in fact have been one of those.

The way SH was set up may be a very good example of the maxim that "a little bit of knoweldge is a dangerous thing."

[rgkeller]

Tough pins and slower greens.

Same conditions all four days rather than the normal USGA set up easier for the first two days' big field and over the edge for the weekend.

Firmness was fine. Rough was fine.

[Michael Dugger]

Nothing!

The winner was -4.  Every shot counted right down to the last one!

The golfer who played the best won.

The only problem is everyone's bitching....notably the schmucks on TV!

[Dan Kelly]

The only aspect I saw that could've been construed as non-sensical, was the green grass rough, protecting fairway bunkers (or any bunker).

Agreed.

I would add a Mike Hendren thought from one of the other Shinnecock threads:

Chipping areas aren't chipping areas if they repel every ball that enters them. Let the grass grow a bit, to hold trickling balls on the slopes.

[Tom_Doak]

Aaargh!

This is a perfect example of how screwed up things get.  Everyone here has a different idea of how to set up a course properly; is it any wonder the USGA has different ideas, too?

Fuzzy chipping areas are certainly NOT the answer.

Softer fairways were unnecessary, as long as some of the landing areas had been at reasonable widths.  Soft fairways suck.

"Same conditions all four days" is the worst answer of all.  That's what everybody wants ... to completely control Nature and make everything Fair.  That is not the answer.  That is the problem.

If you want firm and fast you have to start on Thursday and let it get tougher from there.  The course is drying out.  If you have to water the greens Sunday morning because it's gone too far, that's the price of wanting to dry it out to the limit.

I thought they had it pretty damned right this weekend.  And if they ask me to flatten the seventh green someday, I'll just say no.

[Kenny Lee Puckett]

What struck me about the course set up at S.H.G.C. was the fact that the putting surfaces extended to the crests of the greens.  With the greens dried by the winds to a consistency of a bathtub, a collar of fringe on top of the tabletops might have had the desired effect of slowing bad shots and stopping good shots.  The great plays already held the greens.

Thoughts?

KLP

P.s.  Hope that the members at S.H.G.C. have reciprocals with N.G.L.C. and Maidstone as they will be forced to play temporaries at their own course until next spring.

[rgkeller]

Why not start on Monday and hold the conditions from Thursday through Sunday?

It wasn't mother nature rolling those greens and crushing the grass - starting on Wednesday afternoon.

The USGA and others here seem to believe that the proper test of golf is under conditions that would kill a course if continued more than three or four days.

[Dan Kelly]

Fuzzy chipping areas are certainly NOT the answer.

As I've said already, I thought the conditions, overall, made for a great tournament.

But didn't you get sick of seeing the same greenside recovery shot over and over and over again -- with the ball leaning against the rough or six inches into it?

I did.

What's wrong with fuzzy chipping areas?

[Gary_Smith]

Maybe this has been mentioned on one of the numerous Shinny threads that I haven't read, but I would have moved the tees well up on one of the short 4s, such as #1, to encourage the players to try to drive the green. (remember Palmer driving #1 at Cherry Hills?) I think a short, drivable 4 par is about all that course needs.

 

[Jeff_Mingay]

The firm and fast conditions were right on, but it did seem that the fine line between firm, quick greens and "unfair" conditions was straddled at a few holes. Seven in particular.

And, with the ground as hard and baked as it was, why did the fairways have to be so narrow. Strategic angles of play are so important when the golf course is a rock, so why did the fairways have to uniformily 25 yards wide. I don't think a bit more width would have made it any easier.

Funny, I also don't think there was a problem with the Redan in 1995, was there? How about using that putting surface to set the pace for the rest of the greens at Shinnecock. Maybe I'm simplifying things, but that seems logical to me.

Good on Tom Doak! No surprise he'll refuse to "flatten" the seventh green, if asked to do so. So would I.

[Matt_Ward]

For those chirping from left field and WERE NOT PRESENT at the event let me mention a few things.

The course played beautifully on the first two rounds. Scores could be made and clearly a number of players took advantage when those opportunities presented themselves

The issue was that during the weekend you had a combination of factors. To wit ...

1). A strong drying Northwest wind started to influence things considerably. This wind direction is out of the ordinary for Shinnecock where the prevailing is generally from the southwest or southeast. This wind had little moisture associated with it and when you combine 15 hours of no cloud sunshine you will get a further cementing of the dry conditions. The same weather pattern that influenced play was also around for 4th round although the wind velocity was somewhat less so for the last day than for Saturday. Still, the overall consequences can be seen by the scores that came with the final round -- the highest since the '72 event at Pebble Beach and since 1963 no final round with at least one subpar round.

Sad to say but when you have optimum fast and firm conditions it can quite easily become a speed-a-thon that is very hard to put the brakes to as the event progresses.

2). Few people ever mention that Open pressure goes up several notches as you move towards the weekend. I don't care if they were playing Joe Muni the same people would be effected because of the stakes involved.

3). The USGA simply overplayed its hand with Shinnecock Hills. This is one course that doesn't need to be "helped." I think the subject of greenspeeds needs to be examined because it's too critical to allow luck to be a major determining factor for such a critical event.

[Donnie Beck]

Nice post Matt! I couldn't agree more.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

Great question, Brian.  My answers:

1.  Wider fairways I stated that two weeks ago[/color]
2.  Wispier rough Difficult to achieve.[/color]
3.  Softer fairways You're kidding, right.[/color]
4.  Slower greens How slow ?[/color]
5.  Less rough around the greens and bunkers
     They had FAR, FAR less rough around the greens at this
     year's Open then at any of the previous two opens, in fact
     they created Pinehurst like conditions around the greens,
     eliminating rough that had been there for YEARS.[/color]
     

The course is great enough to stand on its own two feet, without any outside interference.

You know, back when TE Paul got this bee of "maintenance meld" buzzing around in his bonnet, I asked him specifically if this meant anything different from "firm and fast."  He waffled a bit at the time, but since then has really reverted to the F&F/IMM equivalence.  I don't think that any of us on this site have spent enough time pondering the question as to whether the "ideal" "mainteance meld" could in fact be slower and softer, under some circumstances.  I think that SH 2004, may in fact have been one of those.

I think most would agree that the course might have been just a little too fast on the greens[/color]

The way SH was set up may be a very good example of the maxim that "a little bit of knoweldge is a dangerous thing."

[ForkaB]

Pat

Let me explain my "softer fairways" comment which you and others have questioned.  And, no, I wasn't "kidding."

Firstly I said "softer" and not "soft," just as I said "slower" in terms of green speed and not "slow.",  I'm sure you understand the differences between a comparative and plain adjective.

My belief is that firm and fast fairways (or any architectural feature or maintenance practice, for that matter) only allow for interesting strategy if having them so adds a risk/reward factor to the game  As I saw SH, all the F&F fairways did was propel the ball further forward towards the green and not towards hazards or other places which required the players to contemplate and execute shots of greater difficulty or interest.  Compare this to most true links courses (i.e. Sandwich at last year's Open) where slightly mishit balls were directed to bunkers or uncertain rough.  Players took irons and other shorter clubs off the tees so often at SH because there was no room to hit a full driver, and not much advantage, even if you did.

Secondly, I think that the course played far too short.  When players can hit 1-irons 340 yards (Goosen on the 10th on Sunday), something is wrong (and, yes, I do know the elevations of the hole).  In general, I think that the architecture of SH is more suited to a slightly softer fairway than what was presented to the players last week.  Soemthing that would bring the temptation of the driver back into their minds.  That is what I was trying to get at when I referred to the fact that the "ideal" "maintenacnce meld" is NOT always "firm and fast."

Vis a vis your "Pinehurst like conditions" I would say, not really.  Yes they shaved the sides of the greens, but there was still that "collar" of rough to stop balls from progressing too far away from the green (and also giving an easier recovery shot the fuirther away you are from the pin...).  Also, the greens didn't show themselves (at least to me) to be of similar characteristics and quality.  Maybe another example where the architecture limits the ability to set up the course.

Cheers

Rich

PS--Pat, you were just one of many who advocated wider fairways well before the competition started.  Don't wear yourself out by patting yourself on the back so often.

[LenBum]

What would have been more interesting? Watching the Open played on a day like yesterday. The wind blew 20-30 from the prevailing s-sw. Each year I find it a shock that players haven't mentally adapted to the USGA theory about Open setups. Tough, tougher, toughest. Prior to the US Open players are interviewed and all say "we know what we're going to get, tough conditions." But the minute these "best players in the world" encounter these tough conditions, out comes the baby rattle................Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
A couple of players managed to rise above the rest. Just what the USGA was looking for. I know that Shinnecock superintendent Mark Michaud regularly visits here and to him I say a job well done.............I just hope the cost wasn't too high. We do have a Club Championship in 2 weeks.............

[TEPaul]

I completely second Tom Doak's post #9----all of it!

Most of the rest of the reponses on here are some of the most egregious Monday morning quarterbacking I've yet seen on Golfclubatlas.com. United States Open Championships never seem to be problem free, and certainly not in the minds of this crowd who seem first and foremost to want to beat to death some little problem instead of concentrating on what was right and interesting about a course or tournament. Most on here first and foremost seem to want to find fault, some fault, any fault with the USGA before even mentioning what was right and interesting about any of their tournaments.

Richard Goodale basically asked if the course was TOO firm and fast. That's an interesting question--I don't think it really was even on Sunday but it sure was close!

rgkeller seems fixated on changing conditions from Thursday/Friday to the extreme Sunday round. That's an interesting point too, but in my opinion it's what golf and golf courses are all about!! Consistency of playing conditions from Thursday to Sunday is not some all encompassing goal tournaments and those that run and set them up should be necessarily out to acheive. As Doak mentioned, after a while that gets into trying to control nature---the last thing you really need to do to a golf course and a championship test. Don't forget, for players of that caliber the ability to adapt to various conditions and situations is part of the championship test! We very much saw that in the 2004 Shinnecock Open. Matter of fact we pretty much saw what a fairly small dfferential can do when it comes to players of that caliber. And that alone was truly interesting!

This is all in retrospect, and not something I necessarily suggest they should've done---but given that the tournament had no real rain, and seeing as how extremely fast and firm that entire course was and became I would've found it truly interesting to see what the differences in scoring would've been if the course played with it's normal 35 acres of fairway or even it's orignal fairway acreage of 50+.

The only reason I say that is hardly any of those pros were really firing at any of the pins---they were much more often just trying to hold greens or get into position around them. With up to the original 50 acres of fairway I think it would've been very interesting under those extremely firm and fast conditions to see if real width of fairways would've tempted them to try to come closer to some of those pins and it would've been interesting to see if and how they could've pulled that off or not.

[LenBum]

One more thing................I do believe the 7th hole was over the edge. If the greens on Sunday stimped at 13 then the 7th and 11th were at least 2 feet slower. I'm surprised nobody complained about that. With a NW wind blowing down the slopes on each of those holes a stimp reading over 11 puts them in danger of being unplayable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

Let me explain my "softer fairways" comment which you and others have questioned.  And, no, I wasn't "kidding."

Firstly I said "softer" and not "soft," just as I said "slower" in terms of green speed and not "slow.",  I'm sure you understand the differences between a comparative and plain adjective.

My belief is that firm and fast fairways (or any architectural feature or maintenance practice, for that matter) only allow for interesting strategy if having them so adds a risk/reward factor to the game  As I saw SH, all the F&F fairways did was propel the ball further forward towards the green and not towards hazards or other places which required the players to contemplate and execute shots of greater difficulty or interest.  Compare this to most true links courses (i.e. Sandwich at last year's Open) where slightly mishit balls were directed to bunkers or uncertain rough.  Players took irons and other shorter clubs off the tees so often at SH because there was no room to hit a full driver, and not much advantage, even if you did.

I think three things have to be pointed out, firstly, the winds were not from the prevailing direction, which changed the typical play of many of the holes.  It's almost impossible to predict wind direction consistently, and that affects course set up, and the play of the golf course.

Secondly, the fairways did pitch the ball in a multitude of directions.  Some tee shots that landed in the left rough ended up in the right rough.

Thirdly, I think many were shocked at how far these guys hit the ball.  Some holes that are doglegs didn't play as doglegs for these guys because of their length, and I think that surprised everyone, and I don't know if you can defend against 350 to 400 yard drives which are hit with a high degree of accuracy.[/color]

Secondly, I think that the course played far too short.  When players can hit 1-irons 340 yards (Goosen on the 10th on Sunday), something is wrong (and, yes, I do know the elevations of the hole).  In general, I think that the architecture of SH is more suited to a slightly softer fairway than what was presented to the players last week.  Soemthing that would bring the temptation of the driver back into their minds.  That is what I was trying to get at when I referred to the fact that the "ideal" "maintenacnce meld" is NOT always "firm and fast."

Think about what you're saying.
Fairways are a living, growing organism, you just can't dial in a number and anticipate perfect results.
Some mornings are foggy, without any wind, with moisture and dew in the air and on the ground.  Others are windy, some are cloudy others are sunny.  Some fairways are sloped and don't hold water, others are flat and do hold water.
Some have different exposures to the sun and wind.
How do you micro manage the golf course on a hole by hole basis, to present the perfect degree of "softness" or "firmness"
on each fairway ?  You can't.

And, if you made them softer, and it rained every day, as it was supposed to for most days of the tournament, others would complain that the USGA had made the course too soft and too long.[/color]

Vis a vis your "Pinehurst like conditions" I would say, not really.  Yes they shaved the sides of the greens, but there was still that "collar" of rough to stop balls from progressing too far away from the green (and also giving an easier recovery shot the fuirther away you are from the pin...).  Also, the greens didn't show themselves (at least to me) to be of similar characteristics and quality.  Maybe another example where the architecture limits the ability to set up the course.

You're really way off base on this one.
If you look at videos of the 1995 and 1986 US Open at Shinnecock, in comparison to this years Open, you would be startled by the cutbacks in the rough around the greens.

# 10 is a perfect example, it used to be high rough right behind the green, and now, it's closely mown way down to the bottom of the swale.  This pattern was repeated over and over again, on green after green, like # 8 where Els couldn't convert from behind the green, and made double bogie.

I think this feature, eliminating the rough around the greens probably caused more high scores then anything else, because in the past, the rough acted as a backstop, preventing balls from distancing themselves from the green, which resulted in relatively easy Lob wedge up and downs.

This year they were faced with unfamiliar situations and recovery shots, that they were ill prepared for.

The USGA did a great job in the set-ups around the greens, and they should be praised for it.

For years this site has complained about heavy rough around classic course greens, and now, when the USGA removes it, this site complains about the very set-up they've been clamoring for.[/color]

Cheers

Rich

PS--Pat, you were just one of many who advocated wider fairways well before the competition started.  Don't wear yourself out by patting yourself on the back so often.

I'll try not to, but it's great exercise for my arms.  [/color]

[ForkaB]

Pat

Vis a vis cutting the rough around the greens, my "complaint" was that they didn't go far enough in their "pinehursting"!  Sure, they made balls going over 10 go to the bottom of the hill, but into what--cuddly rough, that the pros can flip the ball out of, softly onto the green!  Why not just bikini wax the whole way down and see what these guys can do when given real options off of tight lies, further from the green?

PS--if a fairway is set up such that a drive hits the left rough and ends up in the right rough (I saw that one too, and that is why I made width my point #1), it is not nearly wide enough, IMO.

PPS--following on from that, perhaps my most controversial hypothesis, put on this or one of the other numerous SH threads, is that maybe the architecture there is NOT "elastic" enough to be great.  Maybe it is really, under all the hype and the frisson of the maintenacne last week, a unidimensional "target" golf course.  A great one of that ilk, to be sure, but one nonetheless.....

PPPS-please take careful note of the "Maybe" in the previous paragraph.

[Mike Benham]

Enough of this intellectual discussion when the answer is obvious ...

What would have made Shinnecock more interesting?[/i]

A Windmill ... oops, that's next door ...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rich,

Vis a vis cutting the rough around the greens, my "complaint" was that they didn't go far enough in their "pinehursting"!  Sure, they made balls going over 10 go to the bottom of the hill, but into what--cuddly rough, that the pros can flip the ball out of, softly onto the green!  Why not just bikini wax the whole way down and see what these guys can do when given real options off of tight lies, further from the green?

That's the problem, you can't get these guys further from the green, they're getting closer and closer, and the classic architecture is becoming identical to the Maginot Line.[/color]

PS--if a fairway is set up such that a drive hits the left rough and ends up in the right rough (I saw that one too, and that is why I made width my point #1), it is not nearly wide enough, IMO.

That's what you don't understand.
The reason the balls landed in the left rough and ended up in the right rough is that the player chose to ignore the architecture, the configuration of the features that the architect intended as playing corridors, and FLY it over the dogleg to locations that the architects never envisioned as LZ's.

If you also look carefully at the fairways in those locations, you'll notice a bowl like effect.  Wider fairways would have merely acted like punchbowl greens and funneled errant tee shots to the center of the fairway.

It's not the golf course, it's the ball and equipment that's the problem.[/color]

PPS--following on from that, perhaps my most controversial hypothesis, put on this or one of the other numerous SH threads, is that maybe the architecture there is NOT "elastic" enough to be great.  Maybe it is really, under all the hype and the frisson of the maintenacne last week, a unidimensional "target" golf course.  A great one of that ilk, to be sure, but one nonetheless.....

PPPS-please take careful note of the "Maybe" in the previous paragraph.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()