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.


Chris Moore

Was Hoylake really firm and fast?
« on: July 23, 2006, 06:53:21 PM »
I couldn't help but think as I watched the Open for all four days that it really didn't seem to play all that firm and fast.  Drivers and three-woods routinely ran only 10-15 yards.  Shots into the green seemed to check quite well in proportion to the distance of the approach.  

Just came back from Scotland a month ago, where we played in the rain nearly every day, and each course we played (except for the first two holes at Turnberry) played faster than Hoylake looked to play.  

Was this TV just tricking my eye?

Mark_Rowlinson

Re:Was Hoylake really firm and fast?
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2006, 06:56:58 PM »
The ex-tour pros commenting on radio and television suggested that when a links course gets to a certain degree of dryness the sand underneath the surface comes into play and actually gives a softer landing and little or no roll.  

ForkaB

Re:Was Hoylake really firm and fast?
« Reply #2 on: July 24, 2006, 12:34:39 AM »
I would agree with Mark vis a vis the conditions and Shivas vis a vis the way the pros concocted strategies to deal with the conditions and add that the greens, in particular, were nowhere near as fast as they could have been.

James Bennett

Re:Was Hoylake really firm and fast?
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2006, 12:56:40 AM »
Rich

I note your comment that they could have made the greens quicker if they wanted.

I read that perhaps Thursday they started with greens stimping at 9.  Part of the issue with green speed and playability for the R&A must be that with 156 in the field all playing from the first tee the course needs to be set up to be playable from 6.30 in the morning through to 9.00pm in the evening, irrespective of the weather that eventuates over the 15 hours from when course set-up is implemented.  The greens can play a bit quicker when the overnight watering has dried away from the surface especially if the wind picks up.  So, it appears the R&A has focussed on ensuring the  playability of the course for the 14.5 hours of play rather than start of play.

It looks like a sound outcome from 12,000 miles away.

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

ForkaB

Re:Was Hoylake really firm and fast?
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2006, 01:53:52 AM »
Good point James.  I also think that there was a bit of fear of not being Shinnecocked.  Bottom line, however, was that the course played great.

Mark_Rowlinson

Re:Was Hoylake really firm and fast?
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2006, 05:04:39 AM »
I spent much of the last day in a stand overlooking the 14th green, with all the players approaching from some considerable distance.  All the early players found it difficult to get the ball anywhere near the hole.  Those who landed towards the middle of the green invariably went through the back.  Those who went for the right side, where the pin was cut, tumbled down off the green into one or other hollow from which the chip was pretty well impossible.  However, late in the day Els hit a stupendous approach which flirted with the right side, but he held it on the putting surface and got one of the very few birdies scored there all day.  Then came Tiger who landed a long shot on the green very softly.  His did not bound through the back, but just ran down gently to within a few feet of the hole.  No one else seemed to have that extraordinary skill.  

TEPaul

Re:Was Hoylake really firm and fast?
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2006, 06:44:22 AM »
MarkR:

Interesting point about sand underneath the turf drying out and becoming softer thereby slowing down the bounce and run of the ball. I wonder about that though. Maybe some supers could weigh in on this one, as I'm pretty sure they don't grow grass on essentially straight sand even over there.

Last time I was over there in the summer of 2003 it was extremely hot and dry and a few courses, particularly Alwoodley, was very dry and brown and quite fast but the fairways had a condition about them I've read about in the old magazines that was described as "springy" which was due to a certain amount of thatch.

I tend to think this condition we saw at this Open may've been perhaps some excessive thatch rather than just dry sand under the turf.

« Last Edit: July 24, 2006, 06:45:47 AM by TEPaul »

Mark Pearce

Re:Was Hoylake really firm and fast?
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2006, 08:04:53 AM »
My first post here, so first up, hello everybody.

There was heavy rain overnight on Thursday morning and I think that definitely affected the way the course played on the first day.  Mark R mentions 14.  I sat behind that green for some time on Thursday evening (with a very similar right sided pin position, though further back) and a number of players managed to stop it on the green.  Yesterday it appeared almost impossible.  How Els got his ball to stay there I haven't a clue, when I saw it land I was sure he was going to run off on the right.

I don't think the fairways were rock hard and Mark's suggestion as to why sounds very plausible.  The greens, however, despite not being super quick were very firm.

The only shame is that a very dry summer always means a lack of real Open rough.  I've played Hoylake many times and have never seen the rough so thin and wispy.
In July I will be riding two stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity, including Mont Ventoux for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

Tags: