A 3rd cut for the Open

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I would like to state flat out the Open set up and Oakmont were off the charts good. However I like to take luck of the bounce to the lowest level possible. There is little one can do or should do on shots that are edge of fairway  and bounce in. You should not be there if you want to avoid the rough. However I found it to be pushing things with how deep the greenside fringe was. A reasonably well played shot could end up in hell a bit too easy. I think a slightly lower cut for the first 2 or 3 feet off green before one gets to the deep is worthy of discussion. Ie the fringe, then a 2 inch cut then whatever it was cut.

[Joe Hancock]

Tiger,

I think the number of cuts is already too complicated. I wouldn't be surprised if there was 6 different heights of cut on the course, or maybe more. I think the end result can be achieved more simply.

Joe

[Doug Siebert]

I think it might be more interesting if they'd cut it at fringe height all around the greens, encompassing the bunker surrounds.  I saw a lot of balls get hung up in the rough that should have continued on down into the bunkers -- and some of these bunkers were actually penal depending on the pin position, which is refreshing to see on any US course.

Basically the way I'd like to see it planned is that if a ball rolled off the green with a small amount of speed, as might happen if it was putted off the green, it would collect into some fringe height grass.  But if it had more speed it could get through the fringe height grass directly into the gnarly stuff.  The real tall, honest to goodness rough.  None of these ridiculous seven levels of hell -- there's a purpose for that on fairways to penalize wildly misdirected tee shots, but not around the greens.

What I'd envision would mean that a shot that was hit from the fairway and perhaps missed a bit or hit too strongly so that it hit on the green but couldn't hold would stay in the short grass around the green.  It would be possible to putt, chip, pitch, etc.  Like what they did behind the 3rd green.  But if you hit a shot from the rough where it wasn't under much control you'd likely carry enough speed on the ball it would get into the thick juicy rough.

This would further reinforce the reward for hitting fairways, and maybe help discriminate between drives hit in the fairway and balls hit into that puny little 1.5" first cut.  If you could control the ball reasonably well into the green you'd be in the short grass and have more options for playing your next shot, if you couldn't control it and ended up in the spinach, your options would be dimished down to one as penalty for your sins.

I really hated seeing guys putting off the green and ending up in some fairly thick rough where it wasn't even possible to use putter on the next stroke.  I think that was taking things a bit too far.

[Dan King]

Tiger_Bernhardt writes:
However I like to take luck of the bounce to the lowest level possible.

The PGA TourŪ has done all they can to take luck out of the game. What makes the U.S. Open and the Open such great fun is they bring luck back into the game. It isn't just a test of shots, but also a test of handling both good and bad luck. I'll always remember Payne Stewart complaining about his unlucky breaks at the end of the third round at Olympic, after getting countless lucky breaks prior to then. I knew he was toast in the final round. He had to learn how to handle good and bad luck before he would win an Open. The Opens have been about so much more than shots.

Cheers,
Dan King

For dollar nassaus in practice rounds, Harry Cooper would beat me nine out of ten times, but when the tournament started I beat him three out of four. Harry threw away more tournaments than anybody because he was too excitable. And he believed everybody was lucky and he wasn't.
 --Paul Runyan