[Dan Herrmann]

It would appear that the way Mike Davis sets up a golf course is a real success.  Gone are the days of Tom Meeks and his "defend par at all costs" paradigm.

Watching the last 2 US Opens, the US Am, a US Senior Open, and now the US Women's Open, I think the guy is a genius.    He sets up a fair but challenging course that provides real excitment.  Just look at the US Open ratings from Torrey Pines to see how successful he's been.

Can the guy save golf?  Should he "consult" with ANGC for a Masters?  Why not a Ryder Cup or the PGA Championship too?

I think the game needs Mike Davis - a lot.

A visit to a local driving range found it completely full the day after the US Open.  I've NEVER seen that before.  Men, women, boys, and girls.  People with fancy equipment and kids with 30 year old Austad hand-me-downs.

Wow.

For the first time in a long time, the public was into golf.  Sure, Tiger and Rocco were the primary reasons, but Davis' setup allowed the events to happen.

I'm so happy with Mike that I'm going to re-up my USGA membership.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan -

from the little I've seen and understand, Mr. Davis is a man who does his job thoughtfully and well, and that should be recognized and appreciated.

But if golf needs saving, I don't think that careful and labor-intensive maintenance practices aimed at achieving precisely fair playing conditions is the way to do it.

I don't mean to be critical - as I say, Mr. Davis' job is to set-up USGA championship courses that way, and by all accounts he is doing that very well; but to me it's clear that what's definitely NOT in Mr. Davis' job description is trying to save golf (public and private) from even more precious and expensive maintenance practices....and expectations.

Peter

[Dean Stokes]

Dan, I'm not going to bash the Open set up up bit. It looked great and the scores were fair. However, if Tiger had not been limping around on a broken leg do you think the tv ratings would have been half as high? The only reason half my friends watched was to see if TIGER, not the course, stood up to the challenge.

Oh and PS. I think genius may be a little strong for someone who merely sets up a golf course

[Dan Herrmann]

OK - He's not a genius in the traditional sense, but has anybody ever set up a course better?

[Dean Stokes]

No

[John Moore II]

Depends on how we look at things, but if him setting up the course a certain way brings about public excitement and growth of the game, then thats great. I don't think his set-ups will change the way daily courses are set-up, even members understand that 6 inch rough is foolish. But I think anything that can generate excitement in the game of golf is a good thing.

[TEPaul]

I think it's important to know that Mike Davis really does seem to have a "philosophy" or a new philosophy about setup or certain new wrinkles in setup----including US Open setup. Perhaps the new idea that should be directly connected to him is this idea of "graduated rough" but his dedication to getting what I might call the ideal balance of fast AND FIRM on those US Open greens was really impressive to me at Torrey Pines. That latter aspect really was what I call the "IMM" with greens, and I think it showed bigtime in shotmaking and strategies that promoted a new and heightened degree of tournament excitement at Oakmont and particularly Torrey. To nail that kind of ideal fast AND FIRM setup on the greens does need some cooperation from Old Mother Nature and in the last two Opens he got that.

Another great set-up wrinkle out of Mike Davis' own playbook is this idea of really mixing up the tee markers and hole lengths, particularly on short par 4s. Basically with that at Oakmont and Torrey Mike Davis gave the players 2-3 semi-different courses in four days.

I got to know Mike a couple of years ago probably mostly through my association with his dad, Bill Davis, on the Pennsylvania Golf Association, and I feel like because of that I've been able to have a few very edifying conversations with him about setup and architecture. The fact is Mike Davis just loves classic golf architecture like most all of us on here do.

I've got some huge high hopes with Mike Davis as the USGA's new Competitions Director as I think a lot of people do now, including, thankfully, a lot on the USGA. The other thing I should mention about Mike Davis that those who've never met him might not know about. All of us, from time to time, hear about somebody who's just as nice and friendly as he is good, and I'll absolutely guarantee you that's Mike Davis in spades. When you meet him there's just no way you won't notice that too.

Here's a bit of golf setup trivia, but sometimes in some businesses a rather simple but prescient remark gets attributed to someone and becomes famous. This may be aprocyphal or it may not be but at the 2004 US Open (I guess before Mike Davis took over as the Competitions Director) that happened. Like me, maybe Mike Davis is a fan or student of NASA and Apollo 13 and its lore ("Houston, we've got a problem")----at a particular point on the weekend at Shinnecock with a ton of people on the radio headphones these rather significant words apparently came across the radio from Mike as he was checking out a green-----"I THINK WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM!"   

But again, this Open at Torrey with setup was a slam dunk winner, in my opinion.

[Mark_Fine]

The U.S. Open setups are not going to "save" golf.  Superintendents and golf architects all over the country cringe every time that tournament is played.  That said, I think Mike Davis is trying to make steps in the right direction that can help (though I still think the graduated rough idea looks goofy and contrived and reiterates the notion that golf needs to "be fair" which is at odds with the spirit of the game).  Hopefully the USGA won’t soon be saying that if you hit a shot that is so bad (like Tiger did on his tee shot on his first back nine eagle on Saturday), and miss the graduated rough cone of influence, you are automatically given a two stroke penalty (because that is what you deserved for such an errant shot).  It is not fair that Tiger can hit a ball to a trampled area that should be 12" tall fescue and end up with a perfect lie that he can make eagle from (or is it) 

If this year’s Open at Torrey did anything it demonstrated that compelling golf doesn't necessarily need great golf architecture to pull it off.  This, however, is not surprising as I’m sure most of us can think of many great matches we have each had that took place on dog tracks (architecture-wise).  Furthermore, and maybe the most important positive contribution to golf from this year’s tournament was the 267 yard “par three”.  The USGA basically said that “par” is an irrelevant and subjective term and we should not worry about it.  Last year at Oakmont we had a 300 yard par three which validates this statement.  Par is whatever you want to designate. Still, the question remains to be seen if the USGA will truly grasp this concept and not keep stretching courses to longer and longer yardages to keep “par” in check.   

[Dean Stokes]

I maybe the only person on this site to think that Mike Davis screwed up with the '267 yard par 3' or was it still a 4 . So he did something 'out of the box' and we all think it's great. The hole looked terrible on TV and took away from what was already a good hole.
It became neither a good long par 3 or a good short par 4. It just became a crappy hole. In fact had that been the original design and it was a par 3 this board would have ripped it apart, the same if it was the 'short' 4 on the course. Just an opinion.

[Mark_Fine]

Dean,
I never said the 267 yard hole itself was good or bad.  I just said it changed the perception of what is "par" as defined by the USGA.
Mark

[Dean Stokes]

I totally agree with you Mark. I wasn't having a rant. For the purposes of scoring +/- par did they leave it as a par 4 on the scorecard?

I still think it may have been the wrong hole and occasion to try something like this. However the different use of tees on the par 5, I think #13, I liked. Can't please some people.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

He can save the US Open from being a disaster. Hopefully, he can influence members of private clubs/green committees  and public course owners to mix up the tees from time to time to create some confusion/interest.

[Dean Stokes]

He can save the US Open from being a disaster. Hopefully, he can influence members of private clubs/green committees  and public course owners to mix up the tees from time to time to create some confusion/interest.

Would this help the pace of play issues going on throughout the golfing world at present;D

[Dan King]

Dean Stokes writes:
I maybe the only person on this site to think that Mike Davis screwed up with the '267 yard par 3' or was it still a 4

Par should utterly cryed downe, and not to be used.

What difference does it make what par is? Don't all the competitors play the same hole, trying to get as low a score as they can on the hole?

I have thought the U.S. Opens have all been rather boring. I rarely watched them. Now with both the U.S. Open and U.S. Women's Open, I find them interesting to watch, with golfers actually having to do something planning of their round, not just trying to avoid disaster. I don't know if it saved golf, but it did get me interested again. The true test will be if I'll actually watch the Senior Open.

Way to go Mr. Davis.

Cheers,
Dan King

Well, Ben, you've started a new trend. We're all going out tonight and try to get hit by a bus.
 --Tommy Bolt (following Hogan's victory in the U.S. Open at Merion 1950)

[Dean Stokes]

Dan, how do you presume the watching public would have any idea who was leading or close to the lead?

I totally agree with you that score to par does not matter in the end - low score wins. You need par to score a tournament for the people watching. You also need par in any amateur events as a way to work out handicaps. How else could the level of golf be gauged?

[JESII]

About the "par is irrelevant" debate; is there any chance that Tiger would ever lay up with a 7 iron on a 267 yard hole that had a 3 as par on the scorecard?

Not sure how I feel personally about whether or not it should matter, but it does...

[Dan King]

Dan Stokes writes:
Dan, how do you presume the watching public would have any idea who was leading or close to the lead?

There are numerous ways to get around the issue of needing to use these bogus whole integers. The low tech way would be base it on level-4s. It would be no better or worse than the current system, but get away from the idea yardage has to fit some number. A better answer would be base it on the previous play of the hole. By the time the leaders come through, at least 50 golfers have already played the hole. Use their average for the score of the hole. Now viewers would get a real idea of what is ahead for the leaders. If he has a 3.34, a 3.26, a 4.56 and a 3.78 left to play, they will have a better idea what he has left, than a 4, 3, 5, 4 finish. And we can get back to having 267 yard or 762 yard holes.

You also need par in any amateur events as a way to work out handicaps. How else could the level of golf be gauged?

I can't think of why this is the case. Don't you need difficulty of hole, not par?

Cheers,
Dan King

Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don’t keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.

[MargaretC]

It would appear that the way Mike Davis sets up a golf course is a real success.  Gone are the days of Tom Meeks and his "defend par at all costs" paradigm.

Watching the last 2 US Opens, the US Am, a US Senior Open, and now the US Women's Open, I think the guy is a genius.    He sets up a fair but challenging course that provides real excitment.  Just look at the US Open ratings from Torrey Pines to see how successful he's been.

Can the guy save golf?  Should he "consult" with ANGC for a Masters?  Why not a Ryder Cup or the PGA Championship too?

I think the game needs Mike Davis - a lot.

A visit to a local driving range found it completely full the day after the US Open.  I've NEVER seen that before.  Men, women, boys, and girls.  People with fancy equipment and kids with 30 year old Austad hand-me-downs.

Wow.

For the first time in a long time, the public was into golf.  Sure, Tiger and Rocco were the primary reasons, but Davis' setup allowed the events to happen.

I'm so happy with Mike that I'm going to re-up my USGA membership.

IMO, Mike is a breath of fresh air for the USGA.  He is a down-to-earth-guy who is a pleasure to meet.  Anyone who can generate a renewed interest in watching the USGA Championships is good for the game of golf.

[Dean Stokes]

Dan Stokes writes:
Dan, how do you presume the watching public would have any idea who was leading or close to the lead?

There are numerous ways to get around the issue of needing to use these bogus whole integers. The low tech way would be base it on level-4s. It would be no better or worse than the current system, but get away from the idea yardage has to fit some number. A better answer would be base it on the previous play of the hole. By the time the leaders come through, at least 50 golfers have already played the hole. Use their average for the score of the hole. Now viewers would get a real idea of what is ahead for the leaders. If he has a 3.34, a 3.26, a 4.56 and a 3.78 left to play, they will have a better idea what he has left, than a 4, 3, 5, 4 finish. And we can get back to having 267 yard or 762 yard holes.

You also need par in any amateur events as a way to work out handicaps. How else could the level of golf be gauged?

I can't think of why this is the case. Don't you need difficulty of hole, not par?

Cheers,
Dan King

Judge Smails: Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don’t keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height.

Dan, your having a laugh now aren't you? are you just winding us all up with these zany ideas?

[Dan King]

Dean Stokes writes:
Dan, your having a laugh now aren't you? are you just winding us all up with these zany ideas?

You can use a number that is arbitrary, meaningless and actually harmful to the game, or a number that is meaningful and easy to determine.

Which would you choose?

JES II
About the "par is irrelevant" debate; is there any chance that Tiger would ever lay up with a 7 iron on a 267 yard hole that had a 3 as par on the scorecard?

If this is true, then I have much less regard for Tiger's vaunted intelligence. Is he trying to score low or score as close to an arbitrary number as possible? Who would have thought we could Tiger-proof golf courses just by monkeying around with the scorecard?

Cheers,
Dan King

To see things in the seed, that is genius.
 --Lao Tzu

[JESII]

Dan,

I think it should be a testament to the game of golf more than a flaw in Tiger's intelligence...assuming my instinct is correct that he has never played a 250+ yard par 3 and hit a 7 iron to lay all the way back for a full swing...because, as true as your quote from Lao Tzu may be, there are just too many variables within and out of his control in a 72 hole golf tournament...

I think the momentum component of having just made an eagle is important in the conversation about the relevance of par...making a 4 on a very short par 4 is a hell of alot better than making bogey on a very long par 3 at that stage of the game and by hitting 7 iron, he virtually guaranteed he would back up that eagle with no worse than a par.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dan, JES

not to sidetrack this, but I've been thinking a bit about this par question lately. I've concluded that not only is it relevant, it's actually THE MOST relevant thing out there -- confronting all golfers, on all golf courses, all the time.

Peter 

[Tim Nugent]

Sorry to get in late on Mark Fines comment about Par not being relevent.  It echo's Jack Tuthill's beliefs.  He used to say "Par is for TV.  It helps the guy at home keep score.  Golf is a Match game.  Medal Scoring just insures to the sponsors that the Big Names will still be around for the weekend.  Even in Medal play, Par doesn't matter - low score wins." 
And this from a guy who was the PGA Tournement Director for more than a quarter century.

[Mike Bowline]

 
I'm so happy with Mike that I'm going to re-up my USGA membership.

Dan, I am glad you are going to re-up your membership with the USGA.

Although the USGA is an important part of golf into the 21st century, I have personally withdrawn my USGA membership over the last 5 years due to their total lack of cajones to regulate the ball distance issue. I have also written to them to let them know why I am no longer a member. No response.

With their profit of $50 million from Torrey, plus their huge cash reserves, they should be willing to fight it out with the ball manufacturers in court if necessary. But they are not doing so, so I remain extremely disappointed in their stance on the ball distance issue.

Maybe Mike Davis can knock some sense into the USGA brass with his new-found aura in Far Hills.

[Jim Nugent]

A better answer would be base it on the previous play of the hole. By the time the leaders come through, at least 50 golfers have already played the hole. Use their average for the score of the hole. Now viewers would get a real idea of what is ahead for the leaders. If he has a 3.34, a 3.26, a 4.56 and a 3.78 left to play, they will have a better idea what he has left, than a 4, 3, 5, 4 finish.

You think viewers will have an easier time with 3.34, 3.26, 4.56 and 3.78 than 4, 3, 5, and 4?  For sure that's a lot harder for me.  It's also a moving target, that changes with every golfer. 

The idea you gave above is too specific.  Your other idea -- even fours -- is too general.  Doesn't give anyone an idea of what lies ahead of them, or what came before either.  Par solves all these problems.  It really really helps, IMO, as an immediate, simple-to-follow accounting system.  Both for viewers and competitors. 

Mark Fine, the USGA did not show par is irrelevant.  It showed that in some cases blind adherence to distance alone may not work. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()