[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I have just been looking at the US Am web site.
I have played Hazeltine, actually in the USGA State Team competition a few years ago, but do not remember 3 of the 4 par fives being in excess of 600 yards.
Is it just me or is that somewhat excessive?

I understand that for the most part the US Am has become little more than the best college tournament of the year{in terms of its field}..but does that really mean that from now on this is the kind of length that it's players are going to have to contend with.
Talk about setting up to favour the long hitters!!!!

As a mid am player this just does not really appear to make much sense...sign of the times I understand..but surely the USGA can set up a course for the national championship without feeling the need for 3 par fives in excess of 600 yards.

[Glenn Spencer]

I agree, I think John Harris will be the last one, for a long, long time. The whole sport is a joke right now, you are made to think that these kids are the only people that can play golf, because the courses are so long.

[JESII]

MWP and Glenn,

Assuming the stereotype of mid-am players being a bit shorter than the college kids, would you prefer to have the par 5's at 550 where they can reach them in two and you and I cannot? Or would you prefer to go head to head against them with accuracy and wedges? I'll take the wedge contest over the full steam smash mouth golf dictated by 4 reachable par5's.

[Phil Benedict]

Three-shot par 5's are the least interesting kind of hole as far as I am concerned.  I'm beginning to think the standard course set up should be par 70 with one real three-shotter, however long that needs to be, and one par four and a half.  Three 600 yard holes is beyond the pale.

[Jason Topp]

Agreed with this caveat - Hazeltine does not play as long as the yardage indicates.  This is because a lot of yardage is hidden in the long par fives, which almost no one can reach, and the par threes - which everyone can reach and the fairways are usually firm.  

The par fours are actually not all that bad, depending on the wind.  1 is downhill.  9, 12 and 18 are long, but at least now, 18 will be long for everyone.  Before, long hitters with a tail wind could carry the crest of a hill and leave a short approach.  

2, 5, 6, 10, 14 and 16 are all of reasonable distance.  A shorter hitter in the rough, however, is in trouble.

 Incidentally, our greenkeeper was responsible for stimping the greens this week.  They stimped at 13 during stroke play with one green at 15 and another not measurable because there was not a flat enough area to make the ball stop.  Not my idea of fun.

[Sean Leary]

Jason,

Are you surprised that only 2 players out 300 broke par during qualifying.  Must be close to a US Open setup, I would think...

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Jason,
I am not complaining about the overall course length, as I agree that it is hidden as you say...however 3 par fives in excess of 600 yards..come on..that is not good for golf.
Especially as Phil says it is hard to make good 3 shot holes..and in all fairness to Hazeltine..it does not have 3 good 3 shot holes, just 3 holes that are long enough to be 3 shotters.

Jes...I see your point..but to me it is more the principle of having the 3 holes that are that long, that bothers me far more than the fact that at 550 some kid can reach it and I cannot.

If all 3 holes were true, exciting, well designed 3 shot holes...then okay I guess I could live with it...but that is not the case at Hazeltine...where at least 2 of the 3 are simply long boring slogs.

[JohnV]

Sean,

The US Amateur is setup close to a US Open in terms of length, rough height, green speed and hole locations, although they don't usually narrow the fairways.

[Jason Topp]

Jason,
I am not complaining about the overall course length, as I agree that it is hidden as you say...however 3 par fives in excess of 600 yards..come on..that is not good for golf.
Especially as Phil says it is hard to make good 3 shot holes..and in all fairness to Hazeltine..it does not have 3 good 3 shot holes, just 3 holes that are long enough to be 3 shotters.

Jes...I see your point..but to me it is more the principle of having the 3 holes that are that long, that bothers me far more than the fact that at 550 some kid can reach it and I cannot.

If all 3 holes were true, exciting, well designed 3 shot holes...then okay I guess I could live with it...but that is not the case at Hazeltine...where at least 2 of the 3 are simply long boring slogs.

I agree that they are long boring slogs (with the exception of 3 which I think is a terrific long par five).  I assumed your post was from the perspective of not giving an undue advantage to a long hitter.  From that perspective, I actually think long par fives even things out a bit.  At the PGA you had Justin Leonard, Fred Funk and Chrs Riley all in contention.  I think that they had a chance precisely because of the long par fives.

[Phil Benedict]

Jason,
I am not complaining about the overall course length, as I agree that it is hidden as you say...however 3 par fives in excess of 600 yards..come on..that is not good for golf.
Especially as Phil says it is hard to make good 3 shot holes..and in all fairness to Hazeltine..it does not have 3 good 3 shot holes, just 3 holes that are long enough to be 3 shotters.

Jes...I see your point..but to me it is more the principle of having the 3 holes that are that long, that bothers me far more than the fact that at 550 some kid can reach it and I cannot.

If all 3 holes were true, exciting, well designed 3 shot holes...then okay I guess I could live with it...but that is not the case at Hazeltine...where at least 2 of the 3 are simply long boring slogs.

I agree that they are long boring slogs (with the exception of 3 which I think is a terrific long par five).  I assumed your post was from the perspective of not giving an undue advantage to a long hitter.  From that perspective, I actually think long par fives even things out a bit.  At the PGA you had Justin Leonard, Fred Funk and Chrs Riley all in contention.  I think that they had a chance precisely because of the long par fives.

I agree with Jason the par 5's that are unreachable for everyone favor the short hitters, who often end up with the same clubs in their hands for their third shots as the big hitters.  But a course featuring unreachable par 5's is a pretty clunky way to level the playing field for the short hitter.  Playing to par 70 achieves the same goal in a more elegant manner.

[john_stiles]

...however 3 par fives in excess of 600 yards..come on..that is not good for golf.
Jes...I see your point..but to me it is more the principle of having the 3 holes that are that long, that bothers me far more than the fact that at 550 some kid can reach it and I cannot.

If all 3 holes were true, exciting, well designed 3 shot holes...then okay I guess I could live with it...but that is not the case at Hazeltine...where at least 2 of the 3 are simply long boring slogs.

Michael,

As JV as pointed out, why detract from the capabilities of someone who can swing very well at 125 mph ?  Why make the holes shorter just for the guys who can't ?

They have worked hard to develop the 125 mph swing with the low spin balls.

Look, this technology has been in place for about 7 years now and it doesn't make sense to put someone who can swing at 125 mph at a disadvantage.

If they can swing at 125 mph, and control the low spinning ball 'fairly well',   why not lengthen the holes to let them show off their superior skill ?

[JohnV]

John, I don't think that we need to keep lengthening courses for the better player.  I think it makes some sense to shorten the ball, but it should be done in a way that is somewhat linear (not totally) for all players and not just lop off the top end to make everyone equal.  

The guy who swings it harder and has it under control should have an advantage of the guy who falls short at either of those criteria.  I also think that short and straight should have a smaller advantage over long and crooked and heaven help the short, crooked hitter.

[Jason Topp]

It will be interesting to see the logistics from here on in.  Prett heavy thunderstorms are rolling in today.  I now understand why they play two matches on the 2nd day rather than later.  There will be more time to catch up.

[PThomas]

2 points:

650 yard par 5s for top players is nothing!

and Hazeltine can be  a beast...remember the playoff scores for Payne and Scott SImpson:  75 and 77!

[Glenn Spencer]

MWP and Glenn,

Assuming the stereotype of mid-am players being a bit shorter than the college kids, would you prefer to have the par 5's at 550 where they can reach them in two and you and I cannot? Or would you prefer to go head to head against them with accuracy and wedges? I'll take the wedge contest over the full steam smash mouth golf dictated by 4 reachable par5's.

You are absolutely right. It seems there is no solution besides changing the equipment. I really don't know what it is going to take. I can honestly say that years ago, I would block off entire weekends or evenings to watch the majors or the Amateur and now it just doesn't interest me, I still have the time, but it is sooooo boring. What people don't get is, that driving it long, used to be fun to watch, because there was an inherent risk to doing it. Now, it is just standard and dull.
I guess my ideal course is pretty close to what Phil Benedict describes, that or par 68. Take away the momentum that the long-hitter is picking up.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Gents,
I think you are misunderstanding my point.
I say that 3 par fives in excess of 600 yards is excessive...not purley in the name of shorter hitters...but more in the name of good well designed architecture...which at least two of those three at Hazeltine fall well short..
I object to length for length's sake just to try to accomodate the current breed of long hitters..that is my point.
I would rather play a course with mid length well designed par 5's that "the kids" can reach in two, than some originally mid length hole that was simply lengthened.

[Rick Shefchik]

Only one par 5 at Hazeltine strikes me as a slog -- #15.

I agree with Jason about #3, which has a lot of character: either hit your tee shot long enough to clear the bunker on the left side, or try to squeeze your drive beside it and keep it out of the right rough as the hole doglegs left. Then you need another well-judged shot, probably a long iron, to leave yourself an approach shot from the top of the hill, rather than letting it run closer to the green, which leaves you a short iron approach from a downhill lie to well-guarded green above you.

For some reason #7 isn't usually held in high regard, but it's a strategic challenge. If you want to reach the green in two, you've got to carry your drive over the trees on the right corner of the dogleg right fairway. You can comfortably play to the left side of the fairway, but it's the longer route and it brings the pond in front of the green squarely into play.

Number 11 also requires some thought as well as execution. The short route to the green is down the right side, but that's the worse angle to the well-bunkered green -- you can even get blocked out by trees on the right side.

I don't see those three holes as slogs at all. Of course, when I have played them, I'm not teeing it up at over 600 yards. On the other hand, I don't drive it 320, either, so I'd guess the holes play pretty much the same way for the college boys as they do for me.

[Jason Topp]

Rick:

I agree 7 is a great hole, but my description focused on the 3 long ones.  

You could argue that 15 and 11 are both interesting because of bunkers challenging the 1st and 2nd on both and the wonderful contours in the 11th green.  Nonetheless, par 5's should be fun.  These largely tell me I am not that good.  I already know that.

[Rick Shefchik]

Define "that good."

You're certainly good enough to play the par 5s at Hazeltine well. In fact, you're a tremendous slouch.

[Glenn Spencer]

Right about now, I really miss Michelle Wie the amateur.  

I don't think there is any question that she has the game to win at Hazeltine.

I miss Buddy Marucci, Mark Plummer, Duke Delcher, Chris Patton, Tom McKnight, Crosby, when anybody within reason could win. Gerwin at Cog Hill, missing that 10-inch putt against Kuchar in the quarters.

Maybe Trip will get it done this year. I feel that he deserves and will win one.

[John_Conley]

I have just been looking at the US Am web site.
I have played Hazeltine, actually in the USGA State Team competition a few years ago, but do not remember 3 of the 4 par fives being in excess of 600 yards.
Is it just me or is that somewhat excessive?

Michael:

The holes are playing the way they did in the 1991 Open.  #3 was two shots and a wedge.  All players the day I was there laid up on #7 behind the pond and hit a SW to 10' just right of the hole.  (Honestly.  Everyone played the hole exactly the same way for an hour.)  #11 is a double dogleg so the longest hitters can clip off some by going right.  And Scott Simpson was hitting 2 iron off #15 to avoid the bunker, rough, and OB.  While they may be 600+, they play the same as they did when they were 560 or whatever.

I'll let others decide if this is good or bad.

[Jeff Shelman]

Glenn,

Wie could win?

Remember Clay Ogden, the dude who beat her last year in the APL? He didn't qualify for match play this week.

And Trip said that he hit the ball in his first match as well as he has in 10 years. He might have a chance in a field that lacks a star.

[Glenn Spencer]

I was being facetious. She could if everything fell right though. I watched the Ogden match and God couldn't have beaten him that day!!! Trip is my horse at this point.

[Jeff Shelman]

Sorry. I missed the sarcasm font.

And trip has completed his second round victory over the Watabu dude who won the APL.

[Glenn Spencer]

There are some big-time matches going on today. WOW!!!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()