News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Quigley on WF's Greens
« on: June 23, 2006, 10:32:54 PM »
 Commenting on the greens this week and slamming Winged Foot....

"At the U.S. Open, a guy wins a tournament at 5 over par,'' said Quigley, whose 63 was the best round of the day. "And to be honest, the greens were terrible. When we get good greens, it's like going from putting out of the rough last week to putting on a marble tile. Perfect. The greens are that good.''
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

John Kavanaugh

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2006, 10:35:21 PM »
Where did Quigley shoot 63 and who cares...I had a drink last week next to a drunk who told the bartender about his 62...I didn't even bother to introduce myself to the douchebag...

Pat Howard

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #2 on: June 24, 2006, 12:06:47 AM »
John,
That's one of my all-time favorite posts from you!

As for Quigley, sounds like he couldn't adjust to the greens and is very bitter about it. I wonder what Ogilvy thought of them. ;)  

Jim Nugent

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #3 on: June 24, 2006, 12:44:24 AM »
Is Quigley right, or is that just sour grapes?  

Brian Joines

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #4 on: June 24, 2006, 12:47:58 AM »
They were starting to look a little bumpy by the weekend.

Jesse Jones

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #5 on: June 24, 2006, 01:50:04 AM »
Bottom Line..Everyone putted on the same greens..
Get over it Quigley..You lost..

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2006, 08:11:04 AM »
Sorry guys, but this is old news. There was a fair amount of talk (by Tiger and others and also here on GCA) during the Open about the condition of the poa greens, which were relatively slow, bumpy and spongy due to heavy rains the week before the tournament.

To quote from the new issue of Golf World, "With all the talk of the bumpy greens, it would have made sense to use the 'worm cam' more often."

It may be an exaggeration to call the greens "terrible," but isn't Quigley entitled to his own opinion, especially as he played on them? Don't shoot the messenger (me or Quigley ;))!

TEPaul

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2006, 08:21:03 AM »
"...I had a drink last week next to a drunk who told the bartender about his 62...I didn't even bother to introduce myself to the douchebag..."

John:

Why not? Would you have bothered to introduce yourself if he was telling that bartender about his 82?  ;)

I believe Quigley shot a 63 at sectional qualifying at Canoe Brook. That made him the medalist at that qualifier---news that was somewhat "backseated" by the saga of Michelle Wie at Canoe Brook attempting to be the first women to qualify for the mens US Open.

I like Quigley---I find him a real "look you in the eye" straight shootin' guy.

The interviewer also asked Quigley after his round at Canoe Brook how he felt about Wie tryng to qualify for the Men's US Open and he said he was all for it.  
« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 08:27:05 AM by TEPaul »

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2006, 09:17:52 AM »
Quigley shot the 63 yestaerday at the Booz Allen...or whatever they're playing this week....the leader is 15 under par after 54 holes.....not exactly US Open scoring.
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #9 on: June 24, 2006, 09:22:58 AM »
36 holes believe it or not Craig.

Think these guys are more comfortable this week than last? ::)

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #10 on: June 24, 2006, 09:33:27 AM »
36 holes? Ya see...I don't even pay attention when they aren't challenged...the game is pretty much a pitch and putt contest  most weeks....
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

JohnV

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #11 on: June 24, 2006, 10:14:50 AM »
The greens may be great, but they are playing lift, clean and cheat this week which also helps the scores.  Ben Curtis got to lift his ball from a divot and place it on nice fairway before going for a par 5 in 2 yesterday.  The reason for the LC&C was that there was a chance for bad weather yesterday.  Similarly they are playing real early today to beat any weather.

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #12 on: June 24, 2006, 11:45:17 AM »
Bottom Line..Everyone putted on the same greens..
Get over it Quigley..You lost..

That about sums it up. What happened to "these guys are good". Quigley can't adjust to to the greens at WF after being there a week? ::)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 01:27:03 PM by ed_getka »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #13 on: June 24, 2006, 11:49:22 AM »
If Jack were playing and heard Quigley talk like that, he would have smiled and thought to himself - one more noncompetitor I won't have to worry about. Winners look at the course and conditions and think - how can I use this to my advantage. Losers do a Quigley.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Matt_Ward

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2006, 11:55:25 AM »
The first defense some professionals make is not to simply look themselves in the mirror and say they need to improve "X", "Y" or "Z", but to pin some label or item on the place they just played.

Tiger did that with his whiny "blame the greens" defense for his putrid play last week. Now you get this drivel from Quigley.

I mean who the hell cares what Brett Quigley thinks? Yes, all the guys putted on the same greens and to the USGA's credit they kept the overall speeds of the greens so that a repeat fiasco like the 7th at Shinnecock would not occur.

The botton line is that too many professionals have ODed on courses that offer little in terms of resistance. The US Open is a special event that comes just one time a year -- fortunately the name of Quigley will never grace the surface of the championship trophy.

TEPaul

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2006, 12:09:55 PM »
"Tiger did that with his whiny "blame the greens" defense for his putrid play last week. .

Matt Ward:

You're full of it. Woods did not blame the slow bumpy greens of WF for his poor play. He didn't blame anything for his poor performance except his poor play. He said he thought he might be ready but he realized he just wasn't. He didn't blame the time he took off after his father's death either. When asked if the greens were slow and bumpy at the US Open he did say that they were. When asked if his putting was inconsistent because of slow and bumpy greens he said that it was and he was right just as it appeared to be for every other competitor in the US Open. They were slow and bumpy so what would you expect him to say that they were smooth and fast? There's a big difference between making a statement of fact and blaming poor play on it.

I'd just love to have seen any of you guys play WF last week and hear what you critics would've said about it. I have no doubt you'd all be screaming bloody murder so loud no tour pro would've been heard over your din.  ;)
« Last Edit: June 24, 2006, 12:14:24 PM by TEPaul »

Matt_Ward

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #16 on: June 24, 2006, 12:14:36 PM »
TEPaul:

I was there for the press event -- Tiger blamed his putting woes on the fact that "typical" US Open greens are much faster and smoother than what he encountered at Winged Foot / West.

Tiger did say his play was poor and he did not execute but when pushed by press people for deeper clarification he amplied his comments accordingly.

One last thing -- if there's anyone "full of it" -- look in the mirror.

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #17 on: June 24, 2006, 12:31:32 PM »

Bumpy greens were never complained about until GolfForce maintenance amde perfect greens mandatory.

Quote

What is "GolfForce maintenance"?
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.

TEPaul

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #18 on: June 24, 2006, 01:01:13 PM »
"TEPaul:
I was there for the press event -- Tiger blamed his putting woes on the fact that "typical" US Open greens are much faster and smoother than what he encountered at Winged Foot / West.
Tiger did say his play was poor and he did not execute but when pushed by press people for deeper clarification he amplied his comments accordingly."

Hey, thanks for the clarification, ACE!

Now, you tell me, does the response you just gave regarding Woods at WF sound anything like the first remark you made about Woods?

'When pushed by press people for deeper clarification he amplified his comments accordingly' sounds to me like a guy who was both being accommodating to the press and honest about the conditions of the greens at WF.

That's a pretty long way from your first remark; ‘Tiger did that with his whiny "blame the greens" defense for his putrid play last week.’

If you haven’t figured out by now that one of the primary reasons Woods has gotten where he is, is because he doesn’t whine about set-ups and course conditions you are more than full of it---your deaf and your blind. Don’t bother looking in a mirror, I doubt you’d understand that either.



Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #19 on: June 24, 2006, 01:43:06 PM »
Our local country club has poa greens and they always seem to be smooth and fast. I'm sure their budget, and access to agronomic experts, is 1/2 that of Winged Foot....so were Winged Foot's greens really that bad, or do the tour players putt on perfection every other week?
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

Craig Sweet

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #20 on: June 24, 2006, 01:54:53 PM »
Scott Hollister posted this on the GCM blog site during the Open...

Tiger's wild ride

Among veteran golf scribes, it's well known that much like Jack Nicklaus before him, Tiger Woods often finds fault in everything but his own game when things don't go according to plan. That was the case yesterday when Tiger struggled to a 6-over-par 76 (and will probably be the case later today after he puts the finishing touches on a train wreck of a second round that currently has him at 4 over for the day, 10 over for the tournament and in danger of missing the cut).

The target of his ire yesterday? The greens here at Winged Foot, which he described as "soft," "spongy" and "stringy." Here's more:

    "You're used to playing U.S. Opens with fast greens; these aren't. With the pitch on these greens, you have to keep it on the slower side. We're just not used to being in the U.S. Open with greens this slow. If anything, the greens should have been slower last year (at Pinehurst No. 2). You have to make the adjustment. We're all playing the same golf course. You just have to understand that they're just a little bit slower than we're used to."

So that's it. It was the greens fault. Forget the fact that Tiger only hit three fairways on the day (out of 14) or only 10 greens in regulation. And forget the fact that Tiger was sunken-battleship rusty, playing his first competitive round of golf in more than two months yesterday. It was the greens' fault, plain and simple.

Funny, then, that so many other players held completely opposing opinions about Winged Foot's greens. Vijay Singh, who was at 1-over 71 after round one, said the greens were "a little bit too crusty." First-round leader Colin Montgomerie said the greens "were drying out considerably."

I point all this out not to mock the world's greatest player, because clearly he is just that. But it does put a spotlight on how the uber-talented deal with failure, how they often fail to look in the mirror when things go awry and instead pin poor performance on anything but themselves. After all, they are uber-talented -- how could they possibly perform poorly?

One more, somewhat lengthy, player quote to pass on, this one from Jim Furyk,  who was asked a very general, very uninformed question about Poa annua greens and responded with a very specific, fairly informed answer:

    Q: The USGA mentioned that these are Poa annua greens. How common is that surface on Tour? Is there anything different or special about how you read these or putt on them? Undulations aside, just the grass itself.

    Furyk: The grass is real common. I think up here in the Northeast you see a lot of it, and out on the West Coast you see a lot of it. Pebble Beach, Torrey Pines, the Olympic Club, even throughout the Midwest you see quite a bit of Poa annua. I grew up on it in Pennsylvania, and most of the golf courses in the area, unless they're brand new, are going to be Poa annua.

    As far as preparing, it can be the worst or best surface. If it's dry and firm, it can be very good. If it's wet and soft, it can be pretty much awful to putt on. When it's wet, it gets spongy. When we step on the green you can see pretty much your entire footprint. It gets bumpy and waffleboard-like when it's soft.

    I think back to the U.S. Open at Oakmont in 1994, probably the best surface I ever putted on in my entire career, and they're Poa annua greens. It's firm and fast and they got them really smooth and they didn't spike up and they stayed really nice. It kind of has -- it has a lot of abilities.

    Usually when we play out on the West Coast we see a lot of Poa annua greens. Riviera is another. If it's rained a lot, it's a tough surface because it's spongy and it footprints up. We're used to it. I'll be you we play, I don't know, about 25 to 40 percent of our tournaments on the surface, so we see it a lot.

It has been a long morning here, as technology has let me down big time. Since I started writing this post (about two hours and three computer restarts ago), Tiger has finished his round with another 6-over 76 and will almost certainly miss the cut here at Winged Foot, his first missed cut in a major since the 1996 Masters. I'm sure we'll here more from Mr. Woods about those dastardly greens when he hits the media center soon.

Off to lunch and then the maintenance facility to hopefully trail some of the crews heading out this afternoon.

Posted by Scott Hollister
Project 2025....All bow down to our new authoritarian government.

Jim Nugent

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #21 on: June 24, 2006, 02:10:15 PM »
I still don't get a good sense about whether the greens were in:

a)  Great shape

b) Good shape

c) OK shape

d) sucked

Which was it, guys?  If anything besides a) or b), why, and how much did that impact scoring?


JohnV

Re:Quigley on WF's Greens
« Reply #22 on: June 24, 2006, 02:10:16 PM »
Tiger Woods:
Quote
You have to make the adjustment. We're all playing the same golf course.  You just have to understand that they're just a little bit slower than we're used to.

He isn't complaining about the conditions, he is describing them and then saying he didn't adjust.