[T_MacWood]

Based upon their attitudes, actions and historical set up for their championships which body is more sensative to golf architecture? Both championships are interested in identifying the best golfer, does the USGA's sub-goal of protecting par assist or hinder that search?

[TEPaul]

The goal of constantly protecting par does not help architecture no matter who does it. The question is who manages or micro-manages set-ups for their Opens more in relation to what the course or club wants to do the golf course---the USGA or the R&A? Probably the USGA.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I'm not certain which body better manages (micro-manages) set ups in concert with the golf club, I'll take your word for it that it is the USGA -- but has that ability equated to a greater sensativity to architecture?

[BCrosby]

"Based upon their attitudes, actions and historical set up for their championships which body is more sensative [sic] to golf architecture?"

There is no question that the USGA comes out second in that contest. In fact, you can make a pretty good case that the USGA's extraordinary concern with par makes its setups anti-architectural.

As long as the main theme of USGA setups is keeping winning scores around par, their setups will necessarily have to react to the new technology. And that, in turn, means even narrower fairways, harder greens, thicker rough, and more point to point play down narrow corridors.

All concepts anathema to the Golden Age architects many of us admire.

Bob

[A_Clay_Man]

Don't forget the super.

Micro-managing doesn't translate to a better appreciation for the architecture, does it?

How is shrouding bunkers with long grass, show a respect for that bunker and therefore the gca?

My recollection of The Open, versus the Us open, is that less is more in micro managing. Watching balls roll-out to their fruition, often feeding hungry bunkers, shows more respect for the gca and core principles.  SHGC was as close to any Open Championship set-up, I have ever seen from the usga.

 I hope they continue to respect those fundamentals.

[MikeJones]

I'm pretty sure the R&A have never had to resort to watering greens between groups no matter how dry and windy the conditions got. They seem to set the British Open courses up with a little more of a safety margin re: green speeds etc just in case the weather takes an unforseen turn for the worse.

The USGA seem keener to take the course to it's limit in order to keep scores artificially high. This alters the way that the course was originally designed to be played and often to it's detriment. The USPGA seems to have the same idea this year as we've been told by sources here that they are narrowing the fairways at Whistling Straights and cutting off certain angles of play.

I think championship golf at Major level should be difficult and test not only the skills but the temperament of the best players but not at the expense of compromising the nature of the course.

[A_Clay_Man]

MJ-

I'll take exception with the term "Artificially high".

What's artificial?

Why isn't the softer set-up, you seem to advocate, artificial too? Especially since your position requires more in the way of the hand of man?
 And, if one can object to the "edge", it makes it so much easier to move that subjective acceptable line, inch by inch, all the way back to the other end of the spectrum.  Championship Golf needs to get away from that wet end of the spectrum, and leave it for the 9 wood hitting chocolate pudding loving retiree. Or only when Mother Natures turns on the spiget.

[MikeJones]

Adam, when the fairways are reduced to ribbons and allow only one line of play or the greens set so fast that they need watering between groups, I'd class that as ways of keeping the scoring artificially high and these are both trademarks of USGA course setup.
Most if not all the architects of the Open courses are long since gone so we will never know for sure what they would have thought of the way the USGA and the R&A set up the respective Open courses. I know I think the USGA go to far and once or twice (Carnoustie) the R&A have too.

You're wrong in your assumption that I prefer a softer approach, I never mentioned firmness of the course in my post at all. I love it when courses play firmly but that isn't the only variable when courses are set up for championship play.

[RJ_Daley]

I'd have to go along with the notion that the USGA are the most likely to go against the design principles of the original archie.  But, as noted above, the R&A had demonstrated that they were susceptable to buy into those wrong headed concepts at Carnoustie.  The R&A seems to have shown that they can learn from their mistakes.  But, group think regarding protecting par and reacting to technology is a powerful force.

[BCrosby]

There is another important distinction between USGA setups and R&A setups.

The R&A has acknowledged that its setup at Carnoustie was a mistake.

Bob

[George Pazin]

The goal of constantly protecting par does not help architecture no matter who does it.

This is a really interesting, thought provoking statement that I think deserves closer examination.

Prior to the US Open at Shinnecock this year, I would have agreed with this statement immediately and repeatedly.

However, after much thought and reflection of what transpired, I am starting to think that, while "protecting par" in and of itself might be a bit silly, the steps taken to do so can in some instances really result in an increased positive focus on architecture, if the right lessons are learned and applied.

The standard practice of narrowing fairways, growing rough and adding length do little to highlight architecture, and, in fact, tend to remove strategy from the game (which we all remember Thomas said was the soul of the game), emphasizing simply execution of a desired shot.

However, I truly believe the extremes of firm and fast that we saw this year really emphasized the architecture at Shinnecock. Obviously #7 was a bit over the top and could have used a teeny tiny bit more water. There might even be some other holes where this was true (please don't say #10 - I thought it was great that the playeres were forced to work so hard for a 5 on a shortish par 4). But, by and large, it seemed to me that, aside from holing putts, one of the things that Retief and Phil really did well was think their way around the course - missing on the wrong side, taking the safe play where prudent, going after certain pins where equally prudent.

I also truly believe that if more setups were like this, that the Tour Pros would adapt relatively quickly, and that we would ultimately have a superior product to what we have now, at least in terms of what I personally find fun and interesting.

I will take a Tour Pro standing at the base of the hill on #10, trying to figure out how in hell he's going to walk away with a par, over a Tour Pro, standing in the fairway, yelling "be the right club" ANY AND EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK.

Read Pat Brockwell's quote that I have at the bottom of all of my posts. Read it and think about it. Read it over and over again and think about it over and over again. It really does sum up the state of golf course architecture rather well, IMHO.

[A_Clay_Man]

Mike Jones- I agree that setting up any course should remove most of the nonsense, that has become standard. The narrow fairways, were the only nonsensical aspect, on that course, that I saw, for that championship. But, what I don't see, is how all of a sudden, Shinnecock went from sublime to ridiculous. Litterally overnight. The problem seems rooted in: Just because the average score was higher than "normal". Did that negate the test, that Championship golf can be?

 We tv viewers were privy to plays as brilliant as few could muster. Goosen decision to play for par not chipping to the green should've had significant impact on the learning golfer.

If NBC had better coverage, we could've seen some more real golf. Not just Fred Funk's chilli dip and Vejay's putter, from nearly the same spot, on #7, Sunday, exemplified the whole spectrum of golf. Retief's grimmaces and susequent decisions, to Lefty's realization that Goosen had just sunk and he hit his sand shot too far. This years open was better than great and the differences of opinion, and subsequent discussion has only enforced that greatness.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Yes, It is unique for a governing body to admit and error. I feel the USGA and its obsession with protecting par becomes anti architecture to the point of making the course selected almost indistinguishable from any other one. They do not try to make the hotel and blimp shots the same from year to year to their credit.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()