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.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #50 on: August 21, 2002, 05:56:30 PM »

Quote
Is it really out of place if it fits the land? Isn't #7 the only dropshot par 3 at Pebble? #17 the only hole you drive over a hotel at TOC? I could go on, but I think you get my point.

George:

"Fits the land"?  When Hazeltine was reworked, specific attention was paid to #16 and #17.  I believe that the peninsula green was "made" and I don't think the stream on the left existed prior.  The hole is rather manufactured.

As far as #7 at Pebble Beach... I think the hill was there.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #51 on: August 22, 2002, 06:08:01 AM »
Thanks, John - I didn't know about the manufacturing. I still like the hole & don't think it sticks out that much as that different, at least not enough to bother me. In fact, I don't know that I've ever seen a hole that stuck out from the rest of the course that much that it bothered me, unless one considers courses that were remodeled by a later architect. Were 16-17 redone by the original or the son?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2002, 07:47:10 AM »
I love the hole.  Just trying to answer your questions.

I don't know the exact dates of the renovations or the specific involvement of RTJ or Rees.  It was long enough ago that I presume RTJ handled it.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #53 on: August 22, 2002, 09:36:21 AM »
TEPaul,

If you will review the PGA winners dating back to 1965, let me know which ones you would classify as unknown, today.

They're all well recognized.

In order to win several championships, or to be deemed a great player, you've got to win first, somewhere.

What difference does it make, where that occurs ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Kevin_Reilly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2002, 09:40:00 AM »
Wayne Grady  ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"GOLF COURSES SHOULD BE ENJOYED RATHER THAN RATED" - Tom Watson

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2002, 09:57:21 AM »
Kevin Reilly,

Was Wayne Grady an unknown when he won the PGA in 1990?

Of the 38 past champions, I'll concede Wayne Grady, though others might not.

But, if you look at that field of champions, it's a pretty formidable group.

TEPaul and Jeff Lewis,

Did Rich Beem win any other tournaments this year or any other year ?   I just want to know what qualifies him or anyone else, as an unknown ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »
Logged

Matt_Ward

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2002, 10:02:13 AM »
Just a quick example for all to ponder. If I'm correct the much acclaimed champion Sam Parks  ;D won the US Open at Oakmont. Does that mean that Oakmont is less of a course?

This is the same course that produced such winners as Armour, Hogan, Nicklaus, Miller, Nelson and Els. Not too shabby indeed!

I do believe that certain set-ups completely bastardize the pedigree of a course -- the classic example being Carnoustie a few years back when Paul Lawrie claimed the Claret Jug.

Take a look at ANGC as well. Look at the list of one-time champions -- Keiser, Wall, Mize, Coody, Aaron, et al. Does that make ANGC less of a course? Upsets in golf happen. It's a stretch to automatically assume that the triumph of a leeser player ipso facto means a poor course set-up or venue. Carnoustie is clearly one example where almost to a man the competitors believed the set-up had gone way beyond what should have been done.

Hazeltine isn't the most revered site in golf clearly, but in the PGA the course did what it was supposed to do -- weed out those who did not pay first rate golf. And, in the final analysis, the eventual champion earned his stripes against the #1 player in the world. End of story ...
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

TEPaul

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2002, 05:48:47 PM »
Patrick:

For Christ sake, for about the fifth time stop thinking I'm saying Rich Beem is undeserving of the PGA Championship!

I posted this topic which is a question because I very much disagree with Jeff Lewis's assertion that an unknown winner (Rich Beem) may indicate (or actually he said confirmed his previous opinion that Hazeltine was not a very good course) poor architecture or setup.

I don't agree with his premise or opinion about that--basically I agree with yours (as odd as that may seem). So stop putting my opinion in the same category as Jeff Lewis and do me a favor and at least read what I've written on this subject!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike Clayton

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2002, 06:43:09 PM »
In the two years prior to winning the PGA Wayne Grady beat Greg Norman in a playoff to win the Australian PGA, won the Weschester Classic and lost The British Open in a playoff.
 He was playing some pretty good golf at that time and he was a much better player than he has been given credit for.Shoal Creek had some ridiculous rough that week and Grady was a very straight driver who never hit an iron or a 3 wood off a tee in his life.
 It was perfectly set up for him that week .It wasn't his fault it was set up that way and as he has always said players like him rarely get to a course that really suit them.



Does anyone else think one reason the Masters and the British Open consistantly identify the best players -when compared to the US Open and PGA- is that with much less rough-both around the greens and lining the fairways- the best players get more of an opportunity to put their club onto the back of the ball with all that thick stuff inbetween?



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

John_Conley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2002, 06:50:44 PM »
Mr. Clayton:

Thanks for such a quick response on Wayne Grady's credentials.  It is things like that make Golf Club Atlas dot Com so great, the ability of each other to collectively police the facts.  You have provided the data, it is up to us to decide whether or not he is an "unknown winner".  I'd respect either opinion, as long as it is grounded in reason.  It is way too easy to assume he was never a top player because he didn't repeat those successes from the early 90s and also because memories are short.

I, for one, did not know he had accomplished that much.

Similarly, IBF was one of the World Top Ten at some point near his British Open victory.  It wasn't like that was his only good week.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike Clayton

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2002, 07:14:15 PM »
John
What is interesting about Grady is that he didn't play much good golf after his win.
To understand this it is necessary to understand his life as a pro.
He started at 19 with not a huge amount of obvious physical talent and his family morgaged their house so he could go to Europe to play.He never had a sponsor and paid every bill himself .
He left Europe where his game was really suited and went to America -against the advice of most- determined to prove himself there.
He worked damn hard for years with the goal of winning a major and  when he did it he finally achieved some level of financial security for himself and his whole family -something they had never dreamed of.
Not suprisingly he stepped back to smell the flowers and enjoy life a little and he never really had the same level of motivation or pressure again.
And he and Lynn have done a wonderful job of bringing up a daughter born with Downs Syndrome -which didn't make playing the tour any easier.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Kevin Reilly

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #61 on: August 22, 2002, 11:58:07 PM »
Mike Clayton, thanks for your post re: Wayne Grady.  Surely a fine player, and the question of whether one is unknown is in many cases subjective.  Hard to remember the way things were 12 years ago, but I stand by my choice (offered though in jest to P. Mucci because I can't resist).  Grady did win the Manny Hanny tournament in 89 and lost to Calc that year, but unfortunately I think he was was still a fairly unknown player to the (US) public at large when he won the PGA.  The year he won the PGA he finished 21st on the money list, and after that never got higher than 83rd, for the reasons you described.   Recognition doesn't equal quality.

OK, maybe I should have said Jeff Sluman :)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #62 on: August 23, 2002, 03:40:47 AM »
Kevin:

To me, Wayne Grady is a better example.  As is Paul Lawrie, and Jack Fleck, for that matter.  At least Lawrie has time on his side to "prove" he a "great champion."  

Jeff Sluman would have been a great example for many years after his PGA win.  However, over the years, Sluman has not only shown longevity, but has also won quite a few more tournaments.  So his record, circa 1989, would have been a disappointing one, but he has improved it remarkably since that time.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #63 on: August 23, 2002, 06:43:24 AM »
A few comments....as I seem to be a pinata on this one...
I believe that, OVER TIME, overall leaderboard quality at a venue is indicative of the quality of the course and the setup.
I believe that one tournament is not enough to judge for all time a course or a player.
I believe that private messages sent to other GCAers should be private.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

David Wigler

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #64 on: August 23, 2002, 08:28:26 AM »
Jeff,

Quick idea for the future.  I get a fair share of private messages.  Many are suggestions for a topic people would like me to start.  Some are off-the-record comments.  Almost without exception, people who do not want me to post on a topic start their private message with something like "Not for public consumption but..."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
And I took full blame then, and retain such now.  My utter ignorance in not trumpeting a course I have never seen remains inexcusable.
Tom Huckaby 2/24/04

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #65 on: August 23, 2002, 07:20:50 PM »
Kevin Reilly,

Based on the subsequent credentials presented, are you now saying that you were wrong on the Wayne Grady call ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Mike_Cirba

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #66 on: August 24, 2002, 07:04:48 PM »
I'm not sure about the peninsula green complex, but I do recall reading Rees Jones's comments that the creek on the left had always existed, but was originally not originally visibile from the tee.

Rees evidently took some pains with his redesign to ensure that it was.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Kevin Reilly

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #67 on: August 24, 2002, 11:02:19 PM »
Patrick Mucci,

Re-read my last post.  I reiterated my choice.  

Grady was a fine player, but a relatively unknown fine player.  2 wins in the US, 4 wins internationally including 3 wins on the Australasian tour.  Only two top ten finishes in a tournament following his PGA win.  Highest finish on the money list after his PGA win year (in which he finished 21st on the money list) was 83rd. Thereafter in the 100-200's.

He beat Ronnie Black at Westchester in the year preceding his PGA win, but..."who is Ronnie Black" the average fan might have asked.  (I am aware of him, but barely).

If you are of the opinion that Wayne Grady was not an unknown player, then that is your opinion.  Remember that being unknown is not a criticism or a slight, it is simply a commentary on the person's name recognition among the public.

I offered Jeff Sluman as an alternative choice, because he too is relatively unknown, although better known than Grady because he has continued to play the tour since his win.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #68 on: August 25, 2002, 07:30:52 AM »
Kevin:

Featured in this week's GolfWorld:

"RISING TO THE OCCASION"

"Rich Beem's PGA Championship win, his second impressive performance in three weeks, begs the question: Is he Tiger Woods' newest rival? Or the next Wayne Grady?"

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Robert_Walker

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #69 on: August 25, 2002, 07:38:55 AM »
If you play golf for a living, and are ranked in the top 100 on the PGA Tour, then you are not unknown. Just because Dan Rather has not heard of him, does not make someone an unknown.
Wayne Grady, Mark Calcavecchia, and Greg Norman beat the rest of the field at the 1989 British Open at Royal Troon.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #70 on: August 25, 2002, 08:02:34 AM »
Robert:

As much as I dislike Greg Norman, at least if he had won that playoff, history would treat him better.  With all that talent, this guy should have won WAY more than just two majors.

Calc had his 15 minutes of fame.  He has been a good player on the tour, but perhaps a bit disappointing that with all of his talent and "ability to go low" he has been a bit of an underachiever.

If you hadn't mentioned that Wayne Grady was the third playoff contender there, I wouldn't have known.  I knew there were three - I knew Calc and Norman, but the third was unmemorable.  Case in point!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Robert_Walker

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #71 on: August 25, 2002, 12:05:38 PM »
As of August 1986, I knew who Wayne Grady was, and was aware of his ability. Therefore, in my eyes, he was not an unknown when he, Calc, and Norman, bested the field at Royal Troon in 1989.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:08 PM by -1 »
Logged

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #72 on: August 25, 2002, 01:29:02 PM »
Kevin Reilly,

I think Lee Trevino and John Daly fit the unknown category better than Wayne Grady or Jeff Sluman, at the time of their first wins.

Once they won, they weren't unknown, but prior to Trevino's US OPEN and Daly's PGA they were virtual unknowns, not tour regulars.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #73 on: August 25, 2002, 03:38:46 PM »
Patrick:

Of course, there's a BIG difference between a Lee Trevino or a John Daly versus a Wayne Grady as a virtual unknown winning a major.

Lee and John backed it up with more victories!

Big difference!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Kevin Reilly

Re: Do unknown winners indicate poor courses & set
« Reply #74 on: August 25, 2002, 05:35:33 PM »
Patrick Mucci,

By the time Daly reached the 18th green at Crooked Stick he was better known than 75% of the field.  As you might recall Daly's win was a media phenomenon.  Grady's win, alas, was not.  

Robert Walker, it is great that you knew about Grady, and I'm sure you are not alone.  I'm also sure that there are a lot of people out there who know about Ian Leggatt, Ben Crane, Chad Campbell, Jonathan Byrd and Rod Pampling*.  But the average fan isn't so fortunate, I might venture to say.


* All currently in the top 100 on the PGA Tour money list, so by definition, they are not unknown.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up