Hoylake 06 v Augusta 07: Is it all about where Tiger finishes?

[Philip Gawith]

The 06 Open Championship was held amid extreme conditions and was widely regarded, especially on this board, as a triumph, with the No 1 golfer winning (18 under) seen as a fitting coronation.

The 07 Masters was also held amid extreme conditions. The No 1 golfer came second (plus 3). Many on this board and others were very critical of the tournament.

I am trying to understand why the two tournaments received such different press. Is it:
- the fact that we are miffed at the architectural changes to Augusta and this made us sniffy about the event (though Hoylake also made changes that were criticised);
- or was it just that The Masters changed character too much - from excitement to attrition (a combination of architecture, weather and tournament set-up);
- some combination of the above/other factors.

Had Tiger won, would most/much of the criticism have dissolved, with people hailing the event for having brought the best golfer to the fore, as at Hoylake?

[Rich Goodale]

Philip

It's familiarity which, as we all know, breeds comment.

[Ed Tilley]

I think that the Open was being hailed as a great success both during and after the tournament. Likewise, the Masters was roundly condemned throughout the tournament. This is not consistent with the argument that it's all about who won.

However, it would be naive to suggest that the perceived success of the tournament / course is not linked to the quality of the winner. Ben Curtis winning the Open at RSG somehow lessened the perceived success of the tournament, despite the fantastic quality of the leaderboard in general.

With the Masters it's all about how things used to be. We all remember the Masters as having great excitement, plenty of birdies but plenty of disasters. This year it just seemed to be non-stop disasters. In the words of Wayne Grady on the BBC 'the tournament barely had a pulse for 3 days'. It was still enjoyable but it just wasn't like it used to be.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm sure part of the difference is in expectations; there were none for Hoylake, and they are high indeed for ANGC.  I don't think it is all about who wins.

But I do think that a winner at ANGC that doesn't go for a single par 5 in two all week (granted the temperatures and winds contributed to this) calls into legitimate question what the club has done to the course.  This is the course where a 46 yr. old Nicklaus shot 30 coming in on Sunday; I think many of us fear that might not be able to happen now.

Also, how many trees has Hoylake planted?
 

[Brent Hutto]

Had Tiger won, would most/much of the criticism have dissolved, with people hailing the event for having brought the best golfer to the fore, as at Hoylake?

At least for the prevailing opinion on this forum, had Tiger won the consensus would have been that we don't like the changes to the course as a matter of principle but Tiger's win showed that the course was great even with wrongheaded changes. Since a relative unknown won, we have a free run at saying we don't like the changes and aren't even required to acknowledge that it's still a great tournament venue.

What would be really interesting is what we'd say if Tiger won with a strategy of hitting an iron off the tee on 13 and not going for any Par 5's in two.

Another interesting thought experiment is this. Would 2007 be remembered as a boring and disappointing Masters if the course were setup like 10 years ago but scores were still even par or higher due to the extreme weather conditions?

[Mark Bourgeois]

It wasn't a Masters, no matter who won.

[Doug Ralston]

Crap!

It was a GREAT tournament, regardless of who won. The people who were competitive showed grit and determination, they didn't allow the frequent 'slips' to mentally take them out of the struggle. And it WAS a struggle. A wonderful struggle to keep ones self together, and do not let weather, conditions, or adversity keep you from playing the next shot as effectively as possible.

Not every Major has to be, or should be, a birdiefest. ALL the skills, mental and physical, of the greats should be tested.

I loved it!

Doug

[Phil Benedict]

From an architectural perspective, what's worse - someone winning the Masters while laying up on every par 5 (and playing them 11 under par cumulatively) or someone winning the Open without using his driver?  Is it possible that Tiger getting around Hoylake taking his driver out of his bag three times all week is a sign of weakness in the course?  He certainly couldn't get away with that at Augusta.

[PThomas]

Phil:  maybe if Tiger had hit more 3woods off the tee at Augusta he would have won!

[Phil McDade]

Philip:

Good question; shortly after last year's Opens, I posted a query here after noting that the finishing scores (relative to par) had rarely been wider than they were at Winged Foot and Hoylake. I asked: which was the better examination/test of golfing skill? The consensus seemed to be Hoylake.

What stood out for me with both last year's Open at Hoylake and this year's Masters was how both courses could be played strategically in different ways. Tiger and DiMarco played it almost completely differently, and in the end Tiger's execution with his long irons on approach shots is really what carried the day. Similarily, Johnson's ability to tack around Augusta and play to his strengths -- driving accuracy, wedge play and putting -- won him the tournament over three guys (Woods, Goosen, Sabbatini) all longer both off the tee and with their long irons.

I mean, the point of the game is to get the ball into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, yes? I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference whether or not Johnson didn't go for a single par 5 in two; he played them -11. Any other player who went for a lot of the par 5s in two and played them collectively in -11 would be hailed for his "attacking, no-holds-barred" style of play. I found just as much enjoyment in watching Johnson strategically eviscerate them with his driving accuracy and short game. It brought back memories of Tiger at Hoylake.

[Dan Kelly]

I mean, the point of the game is to get the ball into the hole in the fewest number of strokes, yes? I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of difference whether or not Johnson didn't go for a single par 5 in two; he played them -11. Any other player who went for a lot of the par 5s in two and played them collectively in -11 would be hailed for his "attacking, no-holds-barred" style of play. I found just as much enjoyment in watching Johnson strategically eviscerate them with his driving accuracy and short game. It brought back memories of Tiger at Hoylake.

Bravo.

[tlavin]

I know that a lot of people here were drooling over Hoylake last year.  It seems to me that the drool might have been helpful on its yellow fairways.  In terms of Augusta versus Hoylake, I don't know that there's much to compare.  The Open was played on a golf course that was a little beyond moribund.  If you have to kill a golf course to make it "playable" for a major, I'd rather not watch.  The Masters was played on a course that was much firmer and faster than it usually is this time of year, but it was very much alive.

As for the Tiger issue, the "press" is always better if he wins, isn't it?  Oops, I forgot Tiger won at Medinah, didn't he?  I don't recall anybody being that kind to Medinah which had conditions that were altogether too lush to present any challenge to the pros last year.

[PThomas]

Terry, your comment about the press reminds of how Dan Jenkins used to hate it when a less well-known golfer would win a major during Jack's prime

a great story:  after Lou Graham won at Medinah his wife saw Jenkins and went up to him and said something like "Be nice Dan, he's really a good man"

[Philip Gawith]

Terry, your comments about Hoylake, with respect, are ignorant. The course was not moribund - look at the thread I posted in October showing how the course had changed in ten weeks. It is called nature. Nobody had to kill anything to achieve anything, and nobody "did" anything either. What they did not do, obviously, is water the course.

Phil M: I agree with you. It was still interesting to watch the golf, and I have no problem if Zach Johnson does it his own way. I suppose my original question though still stands - it was still interesting, but it was interesting in a different way from before. Partly this was due to course changes, but as much it was to do with weather/set up. But the course changes poisoned the mood (not without reason) and affected how people viewed the golf.

[tlavin]

Terry, your comments about Hoylake, with respect, are ignorant. The course was not moribund - look at the thread I posted in October showing how the course had changed in ten weeks. It is called nature. Nobody had to kill anything to achieve anything, and nobody "did" anything either. What they did not do, obviously, is water the course.

Philip,

I surely respect your opinion, but by using the word "moribund" I meant that the course was near death.  It was resuscitated after the championship by adding water to the course.  Grass will grow back if you water it in time.  Bringing greens to a near-moribund state is pretty de rigeur for a major championship setup, but the fairways at Hoylake were a lot nearer death than any greens I've ever seen at a major, including Shinnecock.  It clearly was the intent of those who prepared Hoylake for the Open to starve the fairways of water in order to make the balls bound and fly and run like the devil in order to make it very difficult.  Personally, I wouldn't choose to watch that kind of golf and I didn't tune in to much of the Open championship for that reason.  If the USGA would choose to do the same thing at Merion in order to keep scores up, I wouldn't watch that either.

[Philip Gawith]

Terry - you impute motives which were absent, and conduct which did not occur. Nature took the course to the condition it was in, and nature returned it to a greener look in October.

 It is your right to want to intervene with the hosepipe, but you should not suggest the people running the Open were trying to create an effect which was overwhelmingly the product of exceptional weather conditions. You can wonder why they did not try to counteract them, but that is a different point from suggesting that they contrived to achieve an outcome - which they did not.

[tlavin]

Terry - you impute motives which were absent, and conduct which did not occur. Nature took the course to the condition it was in, and nature returned it to a greener look in October.

 It is your right to want to intervene with the hosepipe, but you should not suggest the people running the Open were trying to create an effect which was overwhelmingly the product of exceptional weather conditions. You can wonder why they did not try to counteract them, but that is a different point from suggesting that they contrived to achieve an outcome - which they did not.

Fair enough, I wonder why they did not try to counteract the extreme weather conditions by reaching for the hosepipe because it rendered the golf course in a condition that was moribund.

[Adam Clayman]

It's all about shot dictation off the tee. Hoylake had none and the new and improved ANGC had nothing but.

Just because YOU have a definition of what constitutes a good shot, does that mean EVERYONE ELSE should adhere to that definition?

The placement of vertical hazards to preclude all but the straightest of balls is a contraction in the definiton of a good shot.

I'm reminded of an old movie with Steve McQueen and Jackie Gleason where Steve aimed 90 degrees left and hit the old bananna ball.

Why shouldn't championship golf reflect that elasticity of definition?

 

And, Who the hell are YOU to define what's what?

Terry, the YOU referenced above is not meant to be you personally. It is however meant to be addressed to those who share your apparent philosophies on GC setup and GCA.

[Philip Gawith]

Terry, at the risk of being pedantic, it may have appeared to be nearly dead - hence moribund - but was not in fact -  witness the speedy and total recovery.

In fact, as players testified at the time, it was a very good surface to play on/off. I can't argue if you dislike the aesthetic that was created, since that is a matter of taste, nor if you don't like a course playing so fast - though from my perspective it did introduce some shotmaking which wsa fun to watch.

Maybe I should send you my Open highlights DVD so you can see what you missed!

[tlavin]

It's all about shot dictation off the tee. Hoylake had none and the new and improved ANGC had nothing but.

Just because YOU have a definition of what constitutes a good shot, does that mean EVERYONE ELSE should adhere to that definition?

The placement of vertical hazards to preclude all but the straightest of balls is a contraction in the definiton of a good shot.

I'm reminded of an old movie with Steve McQueen and Jackie Gleason where Steve aimed 90 degrees left and hit the old bananna ball.

Why shouldn't championship golf reflect that elasticity of definition?

 

And, Who the hell are YOU to define what's what?

Terry, the YOU referenced above is not meant to be you personally. It is however meant to be addressed to those who share your apparent philosophies on GC setup and GCA.

Why so cranky?

[Adam Clayman]

Cranky is your interpretation. I know it has been pointed out to you before that Hoylake was not dead and neither was Shinecock, yet you still reference it as such.

My question is why so dictatorial?

The object of the sport is fewest strokes. Not how they come about.

The highest level of championship golf should reflect the fundamentals of the sport and not the game mind of man.

[tlavin]

Adam,

So sorry for summoning up your peevish side this morning.  I'm not dictating anything; I merely mentioned that I chose not to watch golf being played on yellow fairways.  That might be an interesting photo op for you, but it was not my cup of Earl Grey, shall I say.  The Shinnecock reference was to the condition of the greens on the weekend, specifically the Redan hole.  If that wasn't moribund from an agronomic standpoint, I guess I just don't know the meaning of the word.

As for your tone ("who the hell are YOU" was your quote), you might try to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Adam Clayman]

Terry, It was for affect.

Plus, I am always cranky around tax time.

[Rich Goodale]

Terry, It was for affect.

GREAT tyop, Adma!

[Dan Kelly]

Terry, It was for affect.

GREAT tyop, Adma!

Yes. A *most* affective one!