USGA Set up Guy

[Jason Topp]

After spending a couple of days at the women's US Open and having watched the US Open on television the last couple of years, I can only applaud the way the USGA has been creative in setting up its courses.

Interlachen never played to the full listed yardage.  Instead, they used forward tees in many instances to create interesting opportunities for aggressive play.  On Sunday, forward tees were used on 7, 10 and 13 to make eagles possibilities.  Such choices were particularly interesting on 7 and 13 which played downwind.  On Saturday, I did not see much of the course but a forward tee was used on 12 to shorten the par three by 20 yards but the pin was put in the back left portion of the green surrounded by water on three sides.  Even the decision to play the course as a par 73 should be applauded.  With rain, the winning score could have been deep under par but the USGA ignored that concern.

In the US Open, the USGA has shown similar creativity.  The graduated rough idea has made the tournament more entertaining.  There have been many opportunities for agressive play and there have not been the disasters that occurred too frequently during prior years.

While we bemoan the Masters for becoming less interesting to watch, we should applaud the USGA for its fresh approach to its championships.

[John Kavanaugh]

An old man, a guy with a broken leg and a teenage girl.  What's next?

[Mark Bourgeois]

How bout borrowing a page from the All England L&T Club and paying the women what they pay the men?

[John_Conley]

How bout borrowing a page from the All England L&T Club and paying the women what they pay the men?

Or you could be fair about it and pay a purse based on revenue generated.

I'm all for equality, but some folks confuse equal opportunity with something else.  I don't think there is much disparity between the interest level in women's and men's tennis.  There surely is in golf.

[tlavin]

Mike Davis is on the right end of the trend pendulum in terms of set-up.  He trained under a terrific guy in Tom Meeks.  But Meeks worked for people who wanted pain and suffering.  They wanted distance  and the only drama they wanted was tragedy born of trying circumstances.  Meeks did what was asked of him and he did it quite well.  There were occasional moments of lunacy and it was probably this lunacy that pushed the pendulum in the more playful and strategic direction that Davis is now pursuing.  But, trust me, he's able to pursue it because his Competition Committee is moving in that direction.

Fred Ridley is a smart and sensible guy who now has influence at Augusta.  Maybe he'll be able to persuade those who make the final decisions on setup to make the course a little easier, particularly on the back nine.  He should be able to influence them to go with the trend pendulum.

At the end of the day, this is about learning from experience.  There probably has been an overreaction to the technological improvements in club and ball technology and now we're finally seeing some retraction on the way great tournaments are set up.

Mike Davis is getting a lot of credit for being there when the pendulum swung back toward playfulness and playability.

He deserves the credit.

[Dan Kelly]

You know what's way more annoying than an OT thread? A hijacked thread.

Nice try, Jason. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that  the purse (if you'll excuse the expression) has anything to do with the topic at hand.

I agree with you. The course was set up just great, day after day. (Rose and I were there all week.) You're right that if we'd had a bunch of rain, the scores would have been low, low, low. But there was this, too: If we'd had the kinds of winds all week that we had yesterday, and that we've had pretty much nonstop since April Fool's Day, the scores would have been high, high, high -- and the uninformed would have blamed the USGA for a brutal setup.

Here's what I saw (and heard, and felt with my feet): The fairways were wide enough. The rough was tough enough. The greens were fast and firm enough. And the teeing grounds were interesting enough.

I only wish someone at the USGA would diplomatically suggest to the powers at Interlachen that No. 7 (members 16) would be an even more interesting hole, from any tee, if the front bunkers were somewhat narrower, and there were a closely mown path between them up to the green.

[Matt_Ward]

Give high mark to Mike Davis -- but if people on this site and elsewhere have a better memory they will make note of what Kerry Haigh has been doing for a good bit more years with the PGA Championship. Haigh has seen fit to keep the event entertaining without the sheer focus on the pain and suffering dimension.

Glad to see the USGA had the wisdom in letting Mike set up the national championships with such choice holes in the events.

[John Kavanaugh]

The par 37 on the back left littie doubt that this was a Women's championship.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sorry, Jason!

Your post about similarities of setups and "fresh approach" got me thinking about differences between the two, which for some reason led me back to the decisions of Havermeyer in the 1890s and Joe Dey in the 1930s.

This in turn reminded me of the USGA's mission of "for the good of the game and - blah blah blah, too much lateral thinking!

But that's just an explanation, not an excuse.

Dan, giving fellow posters the benefit of the doubt is more likely to improve the civility of the site, if that's important to you. If though we seek the opposite, then I recommend we continue to act according to our worst assumptions.

Mark

[John Kavanaugh]

I thought this was the most boring ending of a US Open I have ever witnessed.  Why is this set up being celebrated if it lacked entertainment?

[Dan Kelly]

I thought this was the most boring ending of a US Open I have ever witnessed.  Why is this set up being celebrated if it lacked entertainment?

Because a great setup of a great golf course doesn't guarantee a finish that will be entertaining to every viewer.

It's certainly not the USGA's fault that Helen Alfredsson is a lousy putter!

One young woman vastly outplayed the field yesterday. It's as simple as that.

[John Kavanaugh]

I would say that an over simplified set up allowed an untested child an opportunity to win a US Open.  We were very close to having the oldest and then the youngest champions in the history of this great championship on the first two tries at this new mind set.  This isn't supposed to be tee ball where everyone wins.

[tlavin]

I don't know that the setup had anything to do with the outcome.  Creamer puked.  Repeatedly.  So did the rookie that Johnny Miller was heralding as the next Sorenstam.  So did Alfredsson.  It was sort of a typical US Open where everybody except the winner looks like they're crawling on broken glass and the winner is in some sort of a trance as he/she waltzes to the title.  In-Bee Park was singularly unaffected by the pressure of the final round and her score reflected this fact.

As for the golf course, I only got to see the last seven holes or so, but it looked really magnificent to me.

[Dan Kelly]

... an over simplified set up ...

Please be specific.

[John_Conley]

I would say that an over simplified set up allowed an untested child an opportunity to win a US Open.  We were very close to having the oldest and then the youngest champions in the history of this great championship on the first two tries at this new mind set.  This isn't supposed to be tee ball where everyone wins.

I'm not sure I understand.  The golf ball didn't know how old In Bee walk in the Park was yesterday.  She played beautiful golf.  The rest of the contenders didn't.

Double bogies on #2 for Creamer and Lewis in the final group?  What the heck happened!  That's an easy hole.  Someone somehow got over the back...a near-fatal mistake on a course where the main goal is to stay below the hole.

Sketchy sand play by anyone that left themselves with medium to long bunker shots...no doubt worried about hitting it over.

Again Lewis and Creamer - BOTH over the back on #9!  This happened in part because the tee was pulled back, leaving a longer approach.  The shape of the green mandates that you have the right club and execute.   Wrong on either and you suffer.

Creamer on #10...goes for the green (why?) and then plops her pitch into a branch.  Poor course management on someone forced to desperation because the leader was not wavering.

Alfredsson missing short putts all day.  Ouch.  She's snakebit.

On the good side, how about Park's approach on #15!  Unreal back to that hole location.  Creamer tried the same and came up on the side of the mounded green.  Execution.

You may call a walk in the park boring, but others celebrated Woods' runaways in 1997 and 2000.  Park's romp was along those lines yesterday, with the exception that she's not an overpowering golfer a la Alfredsson or Wie.

She had it on cruise control.  Boring if you say it is, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that was duly impressed by a player whose game was in another league.  Sorenstam had been striking it beautifully all week and needed a holeout to break 80.  Park put pressure on everyone by eliminating mistakes.  That's not unusual in the U.S. Open.

The oversimplified setup certainly had enough teeth on Sunday when there was some wind.

[John Kavanaugh]

... an over simplified set up ...

Please be specific.

Does the course usually play as a par 37 on the back?  If not then why was a hole changed?  

[Dan Kelly]

... an over simplified set up ...

Please be specific.

Does the course usually play as a par 37 on the back?  If not then why was a hole changed? 

Yes. (It plays as a par-37 on the front. The nines are flipped for these national-type competitions.)

John Conley is right: They played the nines as the members do for the Walker Cup. They flipped the nines for the Solheim Cup and this U.S. Open.

[John_Conley]

Does the course usually play as a par 37 on the back?  If not then why was a hole changed?  

So your post was made with no familiarity of the course?  Okay.

No, the course usually plays as par 37 on the front.  Nines were switched for the US Open.

In the 1993 Walker Cup it did play as a par 72, but that was made by reducing par on #11 to 4 from 5, still leaving three par 5s on the front.

Are there any other courses where you play five par 5s in the first 12 holes?  Only one I've seen.

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

Thank you for a considerate reply to the ignorance of my situation.  I do believe we are entering dangerous territory when we celebrate a course because of set up over architecture.

Some feel that Torrey Pines is only as good as the set up...Is Interlachen any different?  What shined this weekend, the course or the set up?

[John_Conley]

Jaka, I'd say Interlachen gets an A (as expected by most, it really is a good venue for this crowd) and the USGA gets an A-.

At the US Open I'd say it is an A for the USGA and a B+ for the course.

You are correct there was more drama in San Diego than there was in Minneapolis.  I don't think that is a direct result of either venue or setup...just how it works out sometimes.

I've gotta ask...were you bored with this event but usually find LPGA Tour action compelling, or is it just harder to get excited about slower swing speeds playing a course more or less set up for everyday member play?

[Dan Kelly]

Some feel that Torrey Pines is only as good as the set up...Is Interlachen any different?  What shined this weekend, the course or the set up?

I don't know anything about Torrey Pines. I've never been there.

But I was at Interlachen all week.

Both shone. The course and the setup of the course.

Is there any GC architecture that would shine if it were set up badly? Aren't architecture and setup inextricably linked (no pun intended)?

[John Kavanaugh]

I was bored because nobody smiled and could not pick up Creamer's pink ball on TV.  I am concerned that the course may have let Lewis hang around too long and allowed Park to bunt and putt her way home.  The only good thing was that the women in contention we so unattractive that my wife sat next to me and did not pitch a bitch about me watching womens golf.  She made one interesting comment that she thought that Anika was wearing a skirt too long for her age.

I did enjoy when Alfredsen was putting the view from behind reminded me of Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct.  Her putter grip looked like his junk.

[John Kavanaugh]

Is there any GC architecture that would shine if it were set up badly? Aren't architecture and setup inextricably linked (no pun intended)?

Olympic, Shinnecock, Winged Foot...With Meeks it was always great course, poor set up..This bothers me.

[SL_Solow]

Barney,  Not to confuse Park with Tiger, was his US Open victory at Pebble more closely contested than this Women's Open.  Was his ability to lap the field and destroy any drama (other than that created by his great play) caused by a simplified set up?  Why couldn't any ot the other contenders cope with the set up?

[John Kavanaugh]

Barney,  Not to confuse Park with Tiger, was his US Open victory at Pebble more closely contested than this Women's Open.  Was his ability to lap the field and destroy any drama (other than that created by his great play) caused by a simplified set up?  Why couldn't any ot the other contenders cope with the set up?

I also found that tournament boring and do not know if Tiger's margin of victory was a crucial event that led to the "Meeks" model.  I am not concerned at all with great champions running away from a field as I am with turning the US Open into a British Open format that allows lesser players an opportunity to cruise the first three days and hold on to win.