[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Big philosophical question here:

Can one contemplate the courses used for the various majors (and dependant upon how the sponsoring organization sets up the course) on a continuum in terms of strategy and playability?  Here’s what I mean… generally:

At one end of the spectrum…

The Open Championship is played on links courses featuring a high degree of reliance on the ground game.  Fairways are firm offering lots of run on tee shots, and greens are open in front affording bump-and-run shots and putts from off the green.  There is usually no “rough”, as played here in the US (except maybe ’99 at Carnoustie), offering wider fairways which open up multiple angles of play and types of shots – from the tee and into the greens.  And, it seems the greens typically Stimp a little slower at 8-10.

At the other end of the spectrum…

The US Open is played primarily on parkland courses (even holes 4-10 at Pebble are parkland, just the Pacific Ocean is on the right hand side).  As we all know how the USGA tends to set-up their Championship:  Extra long holes, with lush, narrow fairways, bordered by tall, thick rough that promotes little more than a short-iron recovery.  Green sites that are well-bunkered, and have speeds at 11+.  A precision, aerial game from tee to green.  All-in-all the USGA wants to defend par, and forces players into defensive golf.

And, in between you have…

The Masters, which has altered a bit with the advent of a primary cut of rough, but in previous iterations, it seemed to offer a mix of both British Open and US Open strategy.  Fairways seem to be firmer and faster, and allow for some variety of angles off the tee.  However, shots into the green must be precise, and tend to best receive aerial shots.  Again, until recently it seemed that the Masters set-up the course to allow players to be aggressive with their play if they managed their angles, and the opportunity to play for birdies and eagles.  Especially true with holes 13-17 where contestants can make a charge.

And…

The PGA Championship, which seems as if they’re melding the play of the Masters to the courses of the US Open.  Although I’m not sure about Baltusrol, but it seems that many of the course set-ups for recent PGA’s (i.e. Oak Hill, Whistling Straits, Atlanta Athletic Club, and Hazeltine) didn’t have the same aggressively pinched fairways; high, lush rough; lightning fast greens that their US Open counterparts have.  Thereby mixing the need for both precision and recovery, and allowing players to vary their playing strategy with a chance to be on the offense more than if it were an Open.


Maybe, I’m just making this up.  Maybe, I’m thinking that’s how they should differentiate their championships and their champions.  

What do you think?

[CHrisB]

The Masters, PGA and U.S. Open are way closer to one end of the spectrum than the British Open is on the other end. The Masters has moved closer to the U.S. Open end with the new trees and rough. The British Open is completely different than the other 3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
British                                         Masters            PGA    U.S. Open

To me, the PGA is "U.S. Open Lite", and I wouldn't mind seeing it replaced by the Australian Open (provided that they play primarily on firm, fast sandbelt courses!) as the 4th major.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

Chris -

I agree with you, that the Masters has moved closer to the other two.  Ideally, as I understand the design intent of Jones and Mackenzie, the course and toonament would be a hybrid of the two Opens.  And, the PGA would then fit in between the Masters and US Open.

On your second point, I also agree with you... somewhat.  What would make the PGA more interesting (to me) would be to move it around internationally, like what they're trying to accomplish with the AMEX.  Play in the US every other year, and then mix in courses from the UK (non-links Sunningdale, Wentworth, Ganton, Loch Lomond), Ireland, Canada, Australia (which would mean the tournament would have to move to January or February or later in the year like November or December... could they get away with it in October?)

Many of these courses would offer a whole new type of game for the players(sandbelt, heathland).  

Obviously, this isnt' possible because of the logisitics (i.e. TV, Travel, etc.).  Just one man's dream...

[BCrosby]

I don't think it is a continuum. There are fundamental differences between how the R&A views golf competitions and how US sanctioning bodies do.

The differences are of such magnitude that if they didn't all talk about "golf" tournaments, you would think they were staging events for different sports.

Bob

P.S. Dumping the PGA for the Australian Open as the 4th major is a great idea. An Antipodean Major would be terrific for all sorts of reasons, including the great courses in the Sand Belt and the ability to schedule it either late in the fall or early in the spring.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()