What does Ron Whitten think now?

[John Kavanaugh]

Doug,

How far down the list...That's like saying Hagen couldn't win in a convent..

[Robert Thompson]

Matt Cohn/Robert Thompson - when next you are in the UK, I will happily stand you to a round at Hoylake. Afterwards, we can discuss further your claims that "Hoylake doesn't test every club in the bag."

Being a five handicap who occasionally struggles off the tee, I have no doubt that Hoylake will test every club in my bag. I'm not talking about amateurs, even good ones. They'll all struggle with a 7,200 yard course. I'm talking about the best in the world, and all he needed was a 2-iron. Was it a great display of golf? Indeed. Was it awfully low on excitement? Yes. In fact, I'd say it was like watching an expert mechanic take apart a car -- you can appreciate the skill it takes, but that doesn't make it any more entertaining.

[Robert Thompson]

John K:

I have said it a enough times previously -- when someone holds the chief architectural chair at any key golf publication that can clearly influence what is happening -- then I don't believe that same person can be an active player in the design business.

You can't be an umpire and a baseball player at the same time.

This silly idea that disclosure absolves the inherent conflict is simply rubbish. The mere public disclosure doesn't mean that the person holding such a position won't pull punches as needed in order to further their own design interests.

I have enjoyed what Ron has written in the past but the broader issue is how Digest handles the position. Frankly, I find it reprehensible that Erin Hills will not be rated by Digest because of Whitten's involvement. Once you push the stone off the cliff the resulting momentum can cause a boulder like effect at the botton of the hill.

Every journalist, regardless of what they cover, has personal issues and biases they bring to their coverage. Matt, you seem to believe in some pure form of journalism that I'm not sure has ever existed. It is idealistic and there's nothing wrong with it.
That said, I think the best most can expect these days is for people to announce their biases and then readers can make up their own minds. Since I know Ron's position, I can critically read his reviews. I don't see how that is much different from most other columnists....

[Matt_Ward]

John K:

I don't give any free pass to anyone -- the same standard I articulated applies to all.

A critic's role should be completely independent of what is being reviewed. If you are involved on both sides of the business the situation only becomes more clouded and ultimately the reader has to guess where the true intentions lie.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Andy North commented today, that Tiger hits his 2-iron farther than North ever hit his driver.

With off the tee distances of 280 to 300+ how can Ron make those comments ?

Didn't Ballesteros and others use a 1-iron almost exclusively at Oakmont years ago ?

Did that mean that Oakmont was ill equiped to host a Tournament ?

[PThomas]

when Jack won the Open at Muirfield in 66, I believe he only hit driver 17 times, so Tiger was using a similar strategy only to an even greater degree

[Tom Huckaby]

WHAT?
WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?

Will the ghostwriter for redanman please stop it.  You just gave credit to Tiger Woods for being something other than a media-creation, and we know that's completely out of character for the real redanman.  You are fooling no one.  Bring redanman back - this is VERY disconcerting.

BTW ghostwriter, you are 100% correct.

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

One thing I know for sure is that 99% of you guys didn't even read the article..

[Tom Huckaby]

One thing I know for sure is that 99% of you guys didn't even read the article..

I read it.  That alone screws up your percentage.

 

[PThomas]

One thing I know for sure is that 99% of you guys didn't even read the article..

I read it.  That alone screws up your percentage.

 

so did I

[Mike_Sweeney]

One thing I know for sure is that 99% of you guys didn't even read the article..

I read it.  That alone screws up your percentage.

 

0 for 2

[John Kavanaugh]

That is 2 out of 1501...13.01 to go..

[Adam Clayman]

BV, Ogilvy said the same at Winged Foot during his acceptance speech. He applauded the set-up. Of course it was B.S.

[Tom Huckaby]

"You guys" means all 1501, whether participating in this discussion or not?

Cheater.

 

[Glenn Spencer]

Ron Whitten might, say, "The winner hit his driver once in 72 holes, and even that one wasn't necessary. And he still shot 18 under par. If that doesn't meet the criteria for being "outdated" for modern majors, then what does?"

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just presenting the other side of the case. It's a very simple and reasonable argument to claim that Hoylake does not fully test the modern game. You may or may not agree, but it's a very reasonable argument to make.

And the reasonable counterargument would be that the conditions were about as conducive to scoring as could possibly be imagined.  Extremely dry summer, so the rough was as benign as possible.  Then a bunch of rain dumped on the course the night before the Open to soften it up nicely so it was firm but not scary fast.  Then the wind failed to blow for four straight days, and it was warm which adds a bit of distance to everyone's shots.

The question I still have after this is: Will Tiger ever have a chance in an Open that plays in tough weather?  He's great at dominating when the weather's fine, but when things turn nasty he's way down the list.

Doug,

The 68 that Woods shot in the second-round at Bethpage was as good as it gets. The harder the conditions, the more it favors the guy with more shots. Tiger is great in the bad weather, 2002 at Muirfield was an aberration. Will Tiger win in bad weather at the Open? That is all up to the weather.

[John Kavanaugh]

Funny thing...I just read the article for the first time and didn't find a missed point or wrong opinion...as a matter of fact Ron hit the nail on the head.  Here is a link:

http://golfdigest.com/majors/britishopen/index.ssf?/majors/britishopen/gd200607whitten.html

[ForkaB]

John

As they say, to a man with only a hammer at his disposal, everything looks like a nail.  The only thing Whitten nailed was his thumb.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rich,

Please go to the article and pull out one fact Ron got wrong.  You might note he predicted record low scores..Vandals, God and Van de Velde prevented that...

[Chris Hughes]

Tiger/Calc/Davis (among others) were very positive on the course...so who cares about Ron W's negative opinion.  (now if Hoch had a negative comment I might sit up and take notice!)

ES

[ForkaB]

Rich,

Please go to the article and pull out one fact Ron got wrong.  You might note he predicted record low scores..Vandals, God and Van de Velde prevented that...

John

Any moron can get the facts right--all they have to do is get a media guide and a 3rd grade education.  Whitten is payed for his interpretation of the facts and the quality of his opinions.  Both were lacking in that article.  IMO, of course.

[CHrisB]

Going back and reading Whitten's article, he gives the impression that OB would be a big part of the courses's identity and defense, and would have a big impact on the tournament. It really didn't, not even on #3 (did anyone hit it OB there?).

Eric Stratton,
Nice screen name, but just a word of advice--in this forum you'll find things go better if you use your real name (CH).

"Hi, Eric Stratton, Rush chairman, damn glad to meet you."

Animal House is one of my favorite movies. But I would have chosen (Senator) John Blutarsky!

"Mister Bl......Mister Blutarsky, zero point zero..."

[Glenn Spencer]

It was a disrespectful article. Royal Liverpool deserves better than to be described as Royal OB throughout the entire article. The comment about it being the only major won by a guy named Alf is just stupid and irrelevant. It makes it sound like there is something wrong with the name Alf or the course. It is funny, but I call people Ron all the time as a joke. Short for Moron. I think it applies to this review.

[Garland Bayley]

...
You can't be an umpire and a baseball player at the same time.
...

To assert that Ron is in a role anything remotely equivalent to the control an umpire has over a ball game is nonsense.

A more apt analogy would be player/coach.

[Dan Moore]

I didn't appreciate his sarcasm, but he backed up his general assertion with a fairly in-depth analysis and a variety of reasons.  Each point is debatable but not wholly without merit.  

-  no par 5s that can't be reached with an iron.

-  par 4s play short and are inadequately defended.

-  stage has hosted several not so great opens won by Alf Padgham, Fred Daly, and Arnaud Massey, i.e. the course doesn't produce great champions or identify the best golfers

-  course is visually disappointing.

-  2/3rds of the course is dead flat.

-  bunkers while fearsome are not abundant with none behind the greens.

-  the Colt holes along the dunes do not represent his best work.

-  changes on the "Steel" holes were not for the better.

-  the routing changes altered the character of the course.

-  the course was easy in 1967 and would be rendered obsolete by new technology.

The correct analogy is more like that of a highly influential movie critic who also dabbles in movie making.  In this case the critic has a course about to open that is in line to compete for the other open hosted in the US that has been intentionally designed at over 8,000 yds.  Modernize or else.  

[ForkaB]

Dan

What Whitten is doing is not analysis but rhetoric.

Between his Massy, Padgett, Daly examples, the 3 Opens at Hoylake were won by:

JH Taylor
Walter Hagen
Bobby Jones

After Daly, the next three were won by:

Peter Thomson
Roberto DiVincenzo
Tiger Woods

The record of the course speaks for itself.