Geoff Ogilvy vs. Henry Fownes

[Garland Bayley]

Come on George! He would not have grown grass. He would have simply kept adding bunkers. That's why adding another church pews is appropriate only at Oakmont.

[peter_mcknight]

Come on George! He would not have grown grass. He would have simply kept adding bunkers. That's why adding another church pews is appropriate only at Oakmont.


I think Fownes would continue to use the furrow rake in the bunkers and deepen them if he were around and still running the place.  The increased rough height and lushness would have come along for the ride.

[Mark_F]

Ogilvy isn't whining at all.  He's just telling it as he sees it, and those who don't like the truth behind his words label it whining.

"It narrows the gap between the guy who's really good at something and really bad at something, because an 18-handicapper could hit the shots out of the bunker I'm hitting, because you've just got no shot."

The above is by far the best quote from the article.

Anyone care to disagree with his thesis?  Sounds pretty sensible too me.

[Garland Bayley]

Ogilvy isn't whining at all.  He's just telling it as he sees it, and those who don't like the truth behind his words label it whining.

"It narrows the gap between the guy who's really good at something and really bad at something, because an 18-handicapper could hit the shots out of the bunker I'm hitting, because you've just got no shot."

The above is by far the best quote from the article.

Anyone care to disagree with his thesis?  Sounds pretty sensible too me.

I disagree with his thesis. He totally neglects the fact that it takes us three swings to get that one shot that advances the ball 30 yards out of the bunker.

[George Pazin]

Ogilvy isn't whining at all.  He's just telling it as he sees it, and those who don't like the truth behind his words label it whining.

"It narrows the gap between the guy who's really good at something and really bad at something, because an 18-handicapper could hit the shots out of the bunker I'm hitting, because you've just got no shot."

The above is by far the best quote from the article.

Anyone care to disagree with his thesis?  Sounds pretty sensible too me.

And yet we still managed to come up with the 3 guys who put together the best tournament, 2 of whom are the #1 and #3 players in the world.

Does that sound like luck to you?

Additionally, Cabrera was way down on the fairways hit list, yet he managed to win.

FWIW, I don't think Ogilvy's whining at all, I just think he's wrong.

[Mark_F]

George,

Woods and Furyk managed to be there in the end, but the rest of the leaderboard wasn't exactly filled with stellar talent; Niclas Fasth? Jerry Kelly? Hunter Mahan? Steve Stricker? Jeff Brehaut?

Cabrera's built like a bull - I don't think it would have mattered to him if he was off in a cornfield somewhere, he still would have been able to hit the green, especially from only 100-150 yards away.  

[Tom_Doak]

George:

I've got to back up Mark on that last point.  You can't set up a course so badly that Tiger won't be in the hunt, and Furyk had a lot of hometown inspiration ... and other than them, the leaderboard was not something you'd be employing to defend the course.

That whole line of reasoning is really silly, anyway.  The best players in the world are not necessarily the best players on any given week, and it's the latter who should win.

[George Pazin]

I'd argue that Baddeley, Rose, and Casey have been having very good seasons, and that Stricker is often in the hunt for Opens, either they suit his game or he rises to the occasion. And you're not going to get everyone. Toms and Vijay didn't exactly miss the cut.

How exactly can we manufacture an event so that only the top 10 guys are on the leaderboard?

[Jim Franklin]

The Masters?

[Garland Bayley]

...
How exactly can we manufacture an event so that only the top 10 guys are on the leaderboard?

Have an event the top 10 guys get to play every year and the rest of the players don't. Play it on a golf course where local knowledge is important. Do this by inviting a bunch of old guys that don't have a chance. Also, invite a few amateurs to cut down on the number of quality players that can get in. Then hold it very early in the year so the amount of daylight you have limits the field size further.

[Kalen Braley]

The Masters?

Amen to that one....the boys at The Masters figured that one out pretty good...

[Rick Shefchik]

And yet the Lords of Augusta seem to be taking a decidedly Fownes-ish approach to course set-up these days. They're not hacking out of the hay at Augusta National yet, but a trend seems to be developing...

Both the U.S. Open and the Masters seem to be in the same camp on this one: Equipment has changed the game so radically that narrowing the playing corridor is the only way to keep the pros from tearing the courses apart.

Which brings us back to the original question: was Fownes right to insist that courses should be diabolically difficult for even the best players, or is a birdie-starved environment the best way to identify a true champion?