59 at Palmetto GC

[Jason Tetterton]

Dan Burkhart shot 59 in the Palmetto Amateur on Sunday.  Below is a link to the article in the Augusta Chronicle.
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/081505/gol_4909617.shtml
This is after they added 300 yds and did bunker restoration / reconstruction in an effort to put some teeth back into the course.  Heck of a round.

[Tom_Doak]

Jason:  The bunker restoration there had nothing to do with "putting teeth back into" the golf course.  We were simply trying to restore some bunkers the way MacKenzie wanted them.  It doesn't bother me a bit that a young man shot 59 on the best day of his life; I hope it doesn't bother the club, either, because there's really not much they can do about it that wouldn't be counterproductive.

[Jason Tetterton]

Mr. Doak:

From talking to a few of the members that were not in the decision making progress, they feel that the current work is being done for that purpose.  They mention the fairway bunkers on #1 and #8 specifically.  They tell me that the bunkers have been enlarged and brought more into play than ever they can remember.  I don't think the fairway bunker on #1 does anything.  But, the bunker on #8 with the fairway sloping toward that bunker does force the longer hitter to flirt with the bunker or lay back.  I like the changes to the course, and I agree with you that the score this young man shot should be applauded, but not to influence any changes to this fine course.

I understand the work to the bunkers trying to go back to the original Mackenzie, but making the greens bigger and the lengthening of the course...what were they hoping to accomplish?

Also, what changes did Robert Trent Jones II make to the course in the mid-1980's?

Jason

[John Shimp]

Overall the golf course is in much more "maintained everywhere" condition than it used to be in the early '80s when I played in the Southern Cross there.  Before when you were more than a few yds off the fairway it was likely that you would end up in longer weedy grass (can't remember if it was fescue then or whatever grew) with who knows what kind of lie. When I recently played in June the rough was well maintained and did not create real difficult lies.  Also, the greens used to be much smaller and firmer and so the lie really mattered.  Suspect that the rough may have deepened and thickened since June but not sure if the greens are still real soft or not.  Like the enlargened greens and the look of the bunkers though.

[john_stiles]

Excellent round that was.

What was the winning score ? and do you know 1st to 5th scores ?   Apologies but I didn't want to register again with a newspaper.

It was obviously an excellent round, but I am not surprised by much these days.

With the distances reached from the tees, and an excellent wedge/putting day,  I can certainly see a 59 there, or anywhere else for that matter.

Sneak by the devious green at the 5th,  score par or better at the treacherous 7th par 3, eagle two of the three par 5s and with a  twenty-ish putting stoke,  well, there you have it.

It is much, much better with the recent changes in my opinion.

Congratulations on an excellent round.

[Jason Tetterton]

John:

Complete field scores

http://www.golfweek.com/amateur/mens/313146480288466.php

[john_stiles]

Thanks Jason.

A 59 by the winner in the last round and only two players equaled par or better in each of their four rounds.

[jeffwarne]

John,
Palmetto is one of favorite places in the world-I hope the fine 59 shot by Mr. Burkhart doesn't bring about change to a place that is cherished for how little it has changed.
(disclaimer-I'm an out of town member)

Agreed the course used to have a much rougher edge-even sandy lies in the rough areas.
I know it played much tougher then-(referring to your Southern Cross days-a tournament I played in every year as well)
There were several cross hazards where "whatever" was growing(or not growing-a bit of a Pine Valley look)that have been converted to maintained bermuda rough,which isn't scaring anyone -to say nothing of how it is much less visually contrasting.
Irrigation and member pressure to emulate its' cross river neighbor have dramatically changed the look.
There were many places where missing the green brought double into play-(right of #4,anywher but on the green on #7)
now it's a simple flop or pitch from irrigated,maintained rough.

Some gems are better left undiscovered.

I do like the recent bunker renovation/restoration however.

[John Shimp]

Jeff,
Your observations on holes 4 and 7 are right on. Recovery
used to be very difficult on those holes and on others.  Nevertheless it is still a wonderful place.  Maybe over time it will drift back to having a few more unmaintained areas?

[Walker_Taylor]

Palmetto is a fantastic course that most of you on GCA would find to be dream, somewhat like Yeaman's Hall in setting, conditioning, etc.

Tom, when was your work done? I played there last September for the first time.

The young man that shot the 59, if reported correctly, plays on Mike Carlisle's USC-Aiken team. That means he must be a heck of a player, as Mike is a great coach. He was a former teammate of mine at Clemson.

The field at Palmetto was pretty good looking at the results. He beat '04 Carolinas Am champ Banks Wood by 16 shots and perennial mid-am contestent Wynn Solle by more.
Give this kid his due.

With the advent of computers and video (forgetting ANY improvements in clubs and balls,sports psychology and the money at the end of the rainbow ) biomechanics is finally being used in the sport and you will see more and more of these scores. The ball striking is awesome to watch.

That is a cool thing for the top players. For the avid but "average" golfer it will result in better and faster improvement. For you math geeks, geometry and physics is seriously being used in training now, thanks to the computer. Homer Kelley look out!

[Brent Hutto]

Training? Biomechanics? Scientific basis for athletic training? Come on now, surely you jest.

Don't you know it's all about the golf ball? It is now a matter of nigh-biblical certainty in many places that the only thing making Mr. Burkhart hit the ball better than some young amateur might have done a couple decades ago is the ProV1 and Titanium golf clubs.

[Walker_Taylor]

Brent,
Not joking at all. Obviously, the ball goes a lot farther, the clubs are "hotter", and the greens are smoother all having a significant effect on the ability to shoot lower scores more often.
It is a fact that biomechanics, computers, high tech video will make more players better, faster than ever before. This is just starting to come to golf. Other sports, such as swimming, track, etc have used these tools to great effect.
Tiger Woods has been quoted that this will have a significant impact on training. You have more players able to do well now because of these tools.
It is exciting to watch. The worse the player is, the more these tools will help.

[Brent Hutto]

Walker,

I knew you weren't joking, there's no question that modern golfers are now athletes and benefitting from the same advances that have driven other sports for decades now. Whatever changes might be made to the equipment rules, the fact is that Tiger Woods can physically do things that Jack Nicklaus couldn't and there are 10-year-old kids out there who will far surpass Tiger's physical gifts.

It's just that discussions on this forum tend to poo-poo these improvements and minor compared to the (assumed) effects of urethane and titanium.

[Rick Shefchik]

Training? Biomechanics? Scientific basis for athletic training? Come on now, surely you jest.

Don't you know it's all about the golf ball? It is now a matter of nigh-biblical certainty in many places that the only thing making Mr. Burkhart hit the ball better than some young amateur might have done a couple decades ago is the ProV1 and Titanium golf clubs.

Brent:

I don't think that accurately reflects the consensus opinion on this site. I think what a majority of DG posters think is that there are a number of reasons why the ball goes farther than it used to, but the easiest -- or most direct -- way to protect existing golf courses is to restrict the ball.

Of course, Pat Mucci and I could both be wrong.

[Brent Hutto]

I think what a majority of DG posters think is that there are a number of reasons why the ball goes farther than it used to, but the easiest -- or most direct -- way to protect existing golf courses is to restrict the ball.

As I've said a few times recently, I totally believe that if you want them to hit the ball less far you have to start by specifying a ball that goes less far. That's a big "Well, d'uh".

It's just sometimes hard to be certain whether people think the ball is the place to start legislating a distance rollback or whether they think the ball is where the distance came from in the first place.

Oh, and as a postscript I doubt that Mucci will ever be wrong...it's too hard to pin him down to make a statement that unambiguous and falsifiable. Often green but never wrong could be his motto.