[wsmorrison]

I see the result of having so many participants in the US Amateur as a significant detriment to the quality of course set-up for the two courses holding the championship.

There were 311 or so participants and many around here feel that the course set-ups were far from what they could have been in terms of green speed, pin placement and quality and quantity of rough.  Neither course was set-up to the degree of difficulty seen in local tournaments.  Philadelphia Country Club especially was kept far from its ideal as was Merion to a slightly lesser degree.  The need to get everybody around the course in daylight was the overriding factor. Yet, there were 5hr 20min rounds that were finished in the dark.  Flashlights were needed to post scores.

Why are there so many participants?  I'd rather see fewer particpants in the 2 stroke play qualifying rounds so that the courses are set up with a challenge commensurate to the US Amateur.  

Of course Merion still held up relatively well to scoring under conditions more benign than the annual Hugh Wilson Invitational.  Philadelphia Country Club on the other hand played a few strokes easier than it should have.  Green speeds and pin positions were far closer to everyday play and it was a surprise.  I am not sure but my gut feeling having spent a lot of time out there (not on my couch, Matt Ward) is the average round was 30min shorter at PCC.

Besides making dreams come true, why so many players?  Was it the difficult season for turf that made the decision makers decide to reign in the courses?  Or is this standard operating procedure?

[A.G._Crockett]

Wayne,
Without researching it, I don't know what the qualifications for getting there were.  If you know off the top of your head, post it; I'd be curious to know.  I, too, find it surprising that the courses wouldn't be set up significantly tougher that for everyday play, even as great as they are.

311 does sound like a huge number that could have been culled down significantly at local sites; certainly that is done with other events.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

As we discussed yesterday there really are two separate "agendas" between the USGA and the clubs when it comes to "set-up" for US Amateur qualifying.

The USGA's primary agenda is to get 156 players around a course in a single day and that also needs to include a play-off (if possible) on the second day. For this reason the USGA tends not to want "tough" set-ups in qualifying. It's a timing and available day-light thing to the USGA. That, obviously, is their primary concern and objective.

The primary objective of the clubs with the "set-up", on the other hand, is that their course shows best and that almost always means to them that it can defend itself best in scoring with a "set-up".

And the fact is with these really good players today the seemingly small differences in "set-up" both can and does make a pretty significant difference in general scoring outcome.

With courses like PCC and particularly Merion East it all pretty much comes down to the "green set-up" too.

[wsmorrison]

I get that, Tom.  But why have so many players?  312 seems too big a number.  That it impacts course set up and the ability of some contestants finishing in acceptable light conditions has me questioning the size of the field.  How long have they had this large a field?  Should there be a review of this size?

Of course it is human nature that a membership would like to see their course play as tough as possible for obvious reasons.  But to see a US Am set up easier than local tournaments is a bit disconcerting as is the cause.

[Rob_Waldron]

Wayne

There were 7,320 entries for the US Amateur this year. Only 312 players advanced to the tournament proper (4.3%). This is a relatively small percentage. I would hate to see the number of participants reduced.

Setting up a golf course is very challenging. If the course is too difficult you have problems completing the round. Alternatively if the course is set up easier in an effort to encourage faster play you face this sort of criticism.

A golf course can play very different throughout the year. The weather, course conditions and number of players must all be taken into consideration when setting up a course.

As long as all players compete over the same course who really cares how the course is setup? I do not think the USGA gives the egos of the membership much consideration.

[wsmorrison]

BillV,

You are taking my posts and stretching them to make a point I am not intending.  I don't think the USGA should push the envelope on set-up with ridiculous rough and pin placements.  When did I say that?  I said it is too bad they didn't even set them up as some of the top local tournaments are set up; namely the Wilson and DeBaufre.  They don't use ridiculous rough and pin placements.  They use appropriately difficult set-ups.  It is the US Amateur, not the Lehigh member-guest.

I want to cut the number down because even with a moderate course set-up people did not finish under similar light conditions; some finished in the dark and balls were lost partly as a result.  If the total number was 280 rather than 312 and the courses can be set up consistant with a national amateur and everyone can finish in daylight, I would sacrifice the hopes and dreams of 32 for a better overall tournament.  I'm not in any position to do so therefore have no fear.  By the way, how long have they allowed 312 in the qualifying and why did they increase the number?

I have not played in a USGA qualifier.  I don't see why this disqualifies me from having an opinion with some merit.  

Good luck on qualifying next year.

I'm not at all upset about Merion and Philadelphia Country Club handing anyone their asses.  Why should I be?  I think a national amateur should be set up as difficult as a local invitational if it is reasonable and not over the top.  Why don't you give some of the folks at Philadelphia CC a call and see if it is sour grapes or a legitimate difference of opinion.  There was a particularly large differential between how it was set up and how it could be set up.  It doesn't have to be the farthest end of the spectrum which is what you suggest I must be alluding to.  You are wrong in that regard.

I don't see how the tournaments you played in and refer to relate to my stance on the NATIONAL AMATEUR.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

You're probably right that 312 on site qualifiers may be too much. One solution may be to hold the amateur in June but unfortunately the USGA has to consider their annual schedule and that would probably mean too much going on for them in a single month.

I wouldn't have any problem with seeing the on-site qualifier number cut down. The only reason it's the size it is may be that the USGA just thinks they can JUST handle that number in a single day on two courses.

Another solution is to just give the tournament more time but with amateur golf and people in general today compared to yesteryear eveyone seems so impatient and time conscious.

Do you realize that way back when in the 1940s and probably early 1950s when my Dad played US Amateurs the match play draw itself was 128, not 64. A tournament proper itself like that (not including practice) basically took an entire week.

When Skee Riegal won the US Amateur at Pebble in 1947, a tournament my Dad played in, Skee had to win seven matches to win that thing. That's a whole lot of golf but it took considerably more time to do it.

[TEPaul]

redanman:

You're right, GAP does run some pretty tough set-ups in some of their A class tournaments and they always have. It's probably sort of a "Philly School of Architecture" thing left over from the spirit and inspiration of George Crump or something.

Some may say what we try to do is separate those who are mentally strong and can take it from those who aren't and can't and over the years we've done a pretty good job of that----hence the on-going success of a mentally rock solid little energizer bunny like Chris Lange who's about the ultimate in a "don't complain and just get it done" golfer.

Sounds like we have a player like you just about where we want you. A natural born complainer ain't gonna be very successful for long in GAP tournaments unless he's got the over-riding talent of someone like Jay Sigel.  

But the truth is GAP doesn't do all that much in dictating set-up to clubs around here. GAP does do all their own pin set-ups but that's about it.

When I officiate I like to get there early and check pin positons for pin-sheet accuracy and reasonableness in play. At the State Am at HVGC one pin was a bit iffy for reasonableness but I said it should remain and the set-up guys changed it because they didn't want to take the chance that a really good tournament might come down to complaints and criticisms over a pin placement or two so I got over-ridden.  

[wsmorrison]

June would be a much better time to hold an major tournament in Philadelphia.  August may be about the worst month of all, well without snow on the ground.  

Is the Amateur traditionally held in August?  Ran and I spoke about this today.  An Amateur in Philadelphia in June or especially October would be awesome, but the field would have to be smaller in October.  

How about Huntingdon Valley as a venue for the Amateur?  It would be awesome.  I know Linc would like to see it on the B and C nines but Jim Sullivan, Jr. and Ran have me convinced to leave it on A and B; better yet if they return the former fall-offs on the left of 2 and 3 greens  

[AndrewB]

Do you realize that way back when in the 1940s and probably early 1950s when my Dad played US Amateurs the match play draw itself was 128, not 64. A tournament proper itself like that (not including practice) basically took an entire week.

Weren't more of the matches 36 holes too?  I don't know the details on this.

[wsmorrison]

Why would one date on a plaque tell us anything about a pattern?

When was the 1916 Amateur?  I'll give you a hint.  It wasn't in August.  When was the 1924 Amateur?  I'll give you a hint.  It wasn't in August.

"p.s. I know the answer  (Hint: it is mathematically mnemomic using the number "3".)"

By the way, I do not know what mnemomic means.  Now, as to mnemonic, I do know what that means.  Here's one:

Big Idiot Lehigh Lamebrain  

[PThomas]

5hr 20 minutes rounds?  boy, if the USGA doesn't have the balls to penalize professionals for slow play, you think they would for the am's...

I've been subscribing to GS for 30 years now, and I can remember so play being discussed back then....and still nothing is done about it

I know Jack was slow, at least at one point, and Middlecoff too...does anyone know about the pace of play before them?  I can't imagine it took Jones etc 5plus hours

why don't the ruling bodies get it re slow play and the lack of growth in the game? which of course is only exacerbated by longer and longer courses....

thank you for listening!

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

Maybe I've been wrong all these years but I thought that defined in broad terms, a mnemonic is a device, procedure, or operation that is used to improve memory.  Defined in narrow terms, and as you say is what is usually meant by the word — a mnemonic is a specific reconstruction of target content intended to tie new information more closely to the learner's existing knowledge base and, therefore, facilitate retrieval.

I thouhght acronyms were one of a variety of mnemonic techniques, including keywords, pegwords, acrostics, loci methods, spelling mnemonics, phonetic mnemonics, number-sound mnemonics, and Japanese “Yodai” methods.  

I got some of these from a dictionary definition.  I don't know about Yodai, I thought it was a little green George Lucas character

I guess I'm a Fat Acerbic RollingGreen Tightwad  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()