[Jay Flemma]

http://jayflemma.thegolfspace.com/?p=680

[RJ_Daley]

Jay, that was one of your best.  More metaphors and analogies than fidgets and fussets in Sergio's grip, or hitches and halters than Barkley's swing...

[George Pazin]

Riddle me this:

If Oakmont's rough was so brutal - automatic hack it out rough, as every pro seems to allege - how did Cabrera shoot 69 and win when he hit 5 fairways?

And how did Tiger not go lower on Saturday, when he hit so many fairways and so little rough?

Sometimes there's a story to sell, and everyone just keeps on selling it, facts be damned.

* And, for the record, I'm questioning those folks who are relating their stories to Jay and the press at large, not the press who are relaying them.

[Jay Flemma]

Riddle me this:

If Oakmont's rough was so brutal - automatic hack it out rough, as every pro seems to allege - how did Cabrera shoot 69 and win when he hit 5 fairways?

And how did Tiger not go lower on Saturday, when he hit so many fairways and so little rough?

Sometimes there's a story to sell, and everyone just keeps on selling it, facts be damned.

* And, for the record, I'm questioning those folks who are relating their stories to Jay and the press at large, not the press who are relaying them.

George, I still scratch my head about it...how the heck did he hit only five fairways and shoot 69???  Its staggering.

As for Tiger, on sat, he missed a bunch of fwys...and on sunday, his birdie putts just did not drop.

[George Pazin]

It doesn't make me scratch my head - it tells me something very important.

As does Tiger's round on Saturday.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Sometimes there's a story to sell, and everyone just keeps on selling it, facts be damned."

George - short and very sweet. A good and timely post.

Peter

[Jay Flemma]

That's exactly right, always ask yourself "what are they tryign to sell me."

[John Kavanaugh]

In fact, even savvy golf fans might have a tough time picking some of these guys out of a lineup of Dizzy Gillespie’s band.

Jay,

I don't understand this comment.  I checked out the band and I don't think it would be that tough to pick out a professional golfer standing in a lineup with these guys.  How do you get away with this stuff?  My Dad's bookie used to make the same reference about picking his friends out of a group of Asian gentlemen.

http://dizzygillespie.org/

[John_Cullum]

There are those who's hearts and minds are deemed correct, and those who carry the yoke of the presumption of incorrectness.

As a white southern gentile registered republican, I am of course the latter

[Mike_Cirba]

I've read this thread over and over and I still don't see redanman.  

[Jim Nugent]

Riddle me this:

If Oakmont's rough was so brutal - automatic hack it out rough, as every pro seems to allege - how did Cabrera shoot 69 and win when he hit 5 fairways?

And how did Tiger not go lower on Saturday, when he hit so many fairways and so little rough?

I'll take a stab at these.  Cabrera missed 11 fairways, but I'm guessing he didn't hit much into the deep stuff.  His ball stayed in the 1st cut, which was light enough for him to control his 2nd shots.  

That 1st cut is also why the overall cost of rough was not higher.  It averaged slightly over a half stroke for the whole tournament, IIRC.  If Oakmont had cut the primary all the way to the fairways, scores would have really soared.  Mid 290's might have won.    

Tiger didn't go lower on Saturday because he missed a number of shortish putts.  He missed them because a) he was often on the wrong side of the hole, leaving himself big-breaking, lightning-fast birdie tries, and b) he didn't putt well.  

Also, even though he hit so many greens, he didn't hit the ball stiff on any of them.  

Those are my spec's, anyway, George.    

ETA: the one time Tiger did miss a green, on 18, he didn't make par.  The 18th hole cost Tiger dearly at both the U.S. Open and the Masters.  He played each of them 2 over par.  That might have cost him both tournaments.  

[Jay Flemma]

I've read this thread over and over and I still don't see redanman.  

"At a U.S. Open if you miss the fairway, it’s chip out and do damage control. Take for example, 2002 U.S. Open venue Bethpage Black. The Black is set up with narrow fairways and vicious rough not only for when the Open is contested or when sportswriters come to visit for media day, but for everyday play. Weekend golfers in Greater New York City channel their inner Oakmont considerably. “We want a taste of what the U.S. Open is like every weekend” boasts Chuck Cordova, a “Sat-Sun” regular at the Black Course.

Cordova gets his wish. The rough at the Black is longer, thicker and features a stronger blade than the Bermuda rough at Southern Hills for the PGA Championship this week. The fairways are as slim as Petra Nemcova. The bands of rough lining the fairways are almost wider on either side than the fairway itself, yet weekend players gleefully line up for the slaughter with pride.

If you look closely enough, you can still see the bones and ghosts of sportswriters haunting the course. Mark Cannizzaro of the New York Post is still somewhere over in the fescue between the 15th and 16th holes wondering why the heck he couldn’t be at Jets training camp. Larry Fine of Reuters is still helplessly hoping his Hogan ball hovers nearby in grass to the right of ten. (That gnarly escarole looks more like the grasses of the Serengeti Plains where lions hide to stalk prey). Golf architecture writer Bill Vostinak is still looking for his Pro V-1 in the spinach on nine like he’s hunting Private Ryan and yes, with the right kind of eyes, you can see me flogging away at a Maxfli Noodle in the trees between Nos. 1 of the Black and the Green Courses like Captain Jack Aubrey whipping a wayward sailor aboard the H.M.S. Surprise."

It's about mid-way down the article.

Jim N->  Outstanding analysis.  ALso at the British at Hoylake, woods hit something like 80% of his fwys and greens.  He hit 60% at Oakmont.  He was 41st in putting at Oakmont.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Riddle me this:

If Oakmont's rough was so brutal - automatic hack it out rough, as every pro seems to allege - how did Cabrera shoot 69 and win when he hit 5 fairways?

Because:
1  Those guys are really good
2  They're very strong
3  Once out of the rough they are:
        a   great iron players
        b   great wedge players
        c   great bunker players
        d   great putters.
        e   really long

Having played Oakmont shortly after the Open, AFTER the rough had been cut, I can attest to its difficulty.

And, a good friend of mine played there immediately after the Open when the rough HADN'T been cut and he said it was IMPOSSIBLE.[/color]

And how did Tiger not go lower on Saturday, when he hit so many fairways and so little rough?

Sources at the highest professional level at Oakmont told me that Tiger over read or over played his putts from outside of
10 feet.  And, at Oakmont, that can have dire results.[/color]

Sometimes there's a story to sell, and everyone just keeps on selling it, facts be damned.

Those are the facts.[/color]

* And, for the record, I'm questioning those folks who are relating their stories to Jay and the press at large, not the press who are relaying them.

[Dan Kelly]

This "treehouse" is so frustrating sometimes.

George is fully capable of speaking for himself (he's one of the good writers here, after all), but I do believe he is asking Jay Flemma to reconsider this statement from his article:

"One reason we may see a fourth first-time major winner is that the PGA Championship doesn’t restrict recovery shots to 60 degree lob wedges with six-inch rough like the U.S. Open does. Instead of clamping a restrictor plate on the field, here the players can 'cut their coat according to their cloth' as author Patrick O’Brian said about sea captains in battle. A player is not limited in what type of recovery shot to play – bump and run, pitch and check, putt form off the green, punch and backspin – the player can play to their individual strengths and their success or failure depends on execution or lack thereof."

Is that true, or isn't it? (You know, the Open/PGA dichotomy Mr. Flemma alleges -- not the sea-captains-in-battle part, which we'll let pass without comment, if you don't mind.)

[Joe Hancock]

This "treehouse" is so frustrating sometimes.

George is fully capable of speaking for himself (he's one of the good writers here, after all), but I do believe he is asking Jay Flemma to reconsider this statement from his article:

"One reason we may see a fourth first-time major winner is that the PGA Championship doesn’t restrict recovery shots to 60 degree lob wedges with six-inch rough like the U.S. Open does. Instead of clamping a restrictor plate on the field, here the players can 'cut their coat according to their cloth' as author Patrick O’Brian said about sea captains in battle. A player is not limited in what type of recovery shot to play – bump and run, pitch and check, putt form off the green, punch and backspin – the player can play to their individual strengths and their success or failure depends on execution or lack thereof."

Is that true, or isn't it? (You know, the Open/PGA dichotomy Mr. Flemma alleges -- not the sea-captains-in-battle part, which we'll let pass without comment, if you don't mind.)

Dan,

You're thinking too much. The whole point is to create hits on a weblog site.....  

Joe

[Sean_A]

Riddle me this:

If Oakmont's rough was so brutal - automatic hack it out rough, as every pro seems to allege - how did Cabrera shoot 69 and win when he hit 5 fairways?

Because:
1  Those guys are really good
2  They're very strong
3  Once out of the rough they are:
        a   great iron players
        b   great wedge players
        c   great bunker players
        d   great putters.
        e   really long

Having played Oakmont shortly after the Open, AFTER the rough had been cut, I can attest to its difficulty.

And, a good friend of mine played there immediately after the Open when the rough HADN'T been cut and he said it was IMPOSSIBLE.[/color]

And how did Tiger not go lower on Saturday, when he hit so many fairways and so little rough?

Sources at the highest professional level at Oakmont told me that Tiger over read or over played his putts from outside of
10 feet.  And, at Oakmont, that can have dire results.[/color]

Sometimes there's a story to sell, and everyone just keeps on selling it, facts be damned.

Those are the facts.[/color]

* And, for the record, I'm questioning those folks who are relating their stories to Jay and the press at large, not the press who are relaying them.

I don't know how anybody could say the rough at Oakmont wasn't brutal.  I watched and what I saw was narsty rough.  This is how the US Open operates and the only exceptions I have seen in many a year are the Pinehurst Opens.  All this talk of a "fair" setup has about as much meaning as an "unfair" setup.  Its all gibberish.  The fact is Pat is correct and there are no more bones to pick over.

Ciao

[George Pazin]

Hate to parse words, but those are NOT FACTS, they are OPINIONS, from likely very knowledgeable golfers, and they could certainly be right, but those are opinions nonetheless.

The FACT is that Cabrera hit 5 fairways and shot 69 and won.

The FACT is that Tiger hit damn near every fairway and green on Saturday (can't remember the exact number, sorry) and shot 70 or 71 (again, can't remember the exact number, sorry again).

What inference everyone chooses to draw from them does not make them correct - not even my own inferences! I certainly believe mine are correct, but that doesn't change them from opinions to facts.

My OPINION is that the FACT that folks confuse their own OPINION with FACT is a major problem for intellectual discourse on this site and the world at large. Johnny Miller is certainly the poster child for this phenomenon in the golf world.

 

[Jay Flemma]

This "treehouse" is so frustrating sometimes.

George is fully capable of speaking for himself (he's one of the good writers here, after all), but I do believe he is asking Jay Flemma to reconsider this statement from his article:

"One reason we may see a fourth first-time major winner is that the PGA Championship doesn’t restrict recovery shots to 60 degree lob wedges with six-inch rough like the U.S. Open does. Instead of clamping a restrictor plate on the field, here the players can 'cut their coat according to their cloth' as author Patrick O’Brian said about sea captains in battle. A player is not limited in what type of recovery shot to play – bump and run, pitch and check, putt form off the green, punch and backspin – the player can play to their individual strengths and their success or failure depends on execution or lack thereof."

Is that true, or isn't it? (You know, the Open/PGA dichotomy Mr. Flemma alleges -- not the sea-captains-in-battle part, which we'll let pass without comment, if you don't mind.)

Dan,

You're thinking too much. The whole point is to create hits on a weblog site.....  

Joe

No its not...if you'll notice, I don't have any ads on my site and my work is carried by two other sites as well.

The whole point is to do good work.

[Scott_Burroughs]

The PGA Championship's web site has a tag line touting the tournament as "Glory's Last Shot".  Nice (perhaps unintentional) jab at the FedEx Cup playoffs.

[Jay Flemma]

This "treehouse" is so frustrating sometimes.

George is fully capable of speaking for himself (he's one of the good writers here, after all), but I do believe he is asking Jay Flemma to reconsider this statement from his article:

"One reason we may see a fourth first-time major winner is that the PGA Championship doesn’t restrict recovery shots to 60 degree lob wedges with six-inch rough like the U.S. Open does. Instead of clamping a restrictor plate on the field, here the players can 'cut their coat according to their cloth' as author Patrick O’Brian said about sea captains in battle. A player is not limited in what type of recovery shot to play – bump and run, pitch and check, putt form off the green, punch and backspin – the player can play to their individual strengths and their success or failure depends on execution or lack thereof."

Is that true, or isn't it? (You know, the Open/PGA dichotomy Mr. Flemma alleges -- not the sea-captains-in-battle part, which we'll let pass without comment, if you don't mind.)

Dan, to answer your question, from out of the rough daly was 7/8 upon in reaching the green in reg.  Arron Oberholser also turned that trick four times and harrington went 5/8 (and said he hit two fringes where he could putt so he said it felt like 7/8.

So yes, the rough is not at tough (generally) at the PGA as it is at the Open.  The stats dont lie...Angel cabrera aside.

[Dan Kelly]

So yes, the rough is not at tough (generally) at the PGA as it is at the Open.

Jay -- Your article didn't say "the rough is not at tough (generally) at the PGA as it is at the Open."

If you'd said that, I doubt you would've gotten any argument.

You wrote (and this is what Mr. Pazin challenged): "... the PGA Championship doesn’t restrict recovery shots to 60 degree lob wedges with six-inch rough like the U.S. Open does."

Dan

[Jay Flemma]

I certainly did say the rough is not as tough.  And yes, the US Open restricts the recovery shot.  Mickelson and G. Ogilvy said that in their interviews and USGA officials agree with me.  Thats just the way it is and the facts and scorrs bear that out.

[Dan Kelly]

Uncle.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()