News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


by John Huggan

Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bore
« on: June 16, 2002, 12:25:17 PM »
Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bore

John Huggan
IF this US Open Championship is an accurate indication of the future of golf at the highest level, I’m glad I was around for some of the past. This hasn’t been golf; not proper golf; not imaginative golf; and not golf that is any fun to watch.

Of course, we should not be that surprised. The US Open has long been a test of grinding rather than golfing. But, that said, the traditional bloody-mindedness of the United States Golf Association has been exacerbated by their inability - along with the Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews - to curb the advances in club and ball technology over the past decade.

With shots travelling so much farther and straighter than even five years ago, Bethpage’s Black course, in response, has been all but covered in long grass. Heavy rough, golf’s most boring hazard, has become the last refuge for the USGA and a tacit admission of their failure to fulfil their very reason for existing. Supposedly charged with preserving golf’s previously-peerless integrity, they have, through a complex mix of incompetence, ignorance and inattention, allowed equipment manufacturers irrevocably to alter the professional game. And not for the better.

For the very best players, new technology in the shape of increasingly-powerful metal-headed drivers and ever more efficient balls, has rendered many of our most revered venues all but obsolete. Over the past few years, even Augusta National and our own Old Course at St Andrews have been stretched to breaking point.

So it is that the custodians of the Open Championship and the US Open - the aforementioned R&A and USGA - have increasingly opted for more ludicrous and lengthy course set-ups. Bethpage this weekend measures 7214 yards, making it the longest course in US Open history. Only a single hole, the 14th, is less than 200 yards long.

Had the USGA and the R&A stayed ahead of Titleist, Callaway and Taylor Made, and decreed that clubs and balls could not produce anything like the distances they do today, there would have been no need for such extreme measures.

And things are going to get longer. When this championship visits Oakmont in 2007, the competitors will be asked to play a 505-yard par-4. Torrey Pines in San Diego, where the event will probably go the following year, can already be stretched to a mind-boggling 7700 yards. Where will it end?

Even worse than mere yardage, however, is that this 102nd US Open has been played on an incredibly-difficult, narrow and sadly one-dimensional golf course. In terms of shot-making, the tournament has been a crushing bore.

"They [the USGA] take your decision-making away," says former European Tour professional Jay Townsend, who is here working for Radio Five Live. "There is no imagination. It’s penal golf, not strategic golf. It’s fun to watch players decide which club to use, which shot to play. Here there is none of that. There is only one shot every time."

Another former European Tour professional, Australian Mike Clayton, is covering the event for the Melbourne Age newspaper. His reaction to his first US Open has been one of tired resignation.
      
"The course set-up totally dictates to the player where he has to go. There are no options. There is only one shot you can play if you miss a fairway or a green. Get the lob wedge out. And, worst of all, many of the bunkers are in the rough.

"It shocks me that the bunker’s sphere of influence is so small. I like to see an errant shot encouraged into the sand, which doesn’t happen here. The long grass stops the ball. So the bunkers are havens, not hazards.

"The long grass eliminates any element of strategic play. You don’t want to go close to the bunkers. If you drive close to sand, you really should be in the perfect spot. But if you do that here, you’re in the rough. So you don’t need to go near the bunkers. The long green grass, not the sand, is the primary hazard."

The man responsible for the golf course is architect Rees Jones, the so-called ‘Open doctor’. Since 1988, Jones has ‘restored’ six US Open venues. It was he, egged on no doubt by the USGA, who came up with this abomination.

"Why are the bunkers in the middle of the rough?" he asks rhetorically. "Good question. It’s that the bunkers aren’t that important in a US Open set-up. The rough is much more important. The way players are now, fairway bunkers are not enough of a deterrent. Accuracy and now length are the things that make this course difficult."

Difficult, yes; interesting, no.

Clayton, though, observes: "What has been lost here at Bethpage is imagination and strategy. Golf is so much more interesting when a player stands on the tee, and doesn’t know what to do. But it’s obvious here. All the players have to do is drive on to the fairway - not any particular side, just anywhere on the fairway. In fact, they have been better off on the wrong side of the fairway rather than missing the correct side by a yard.

"Whenever they have missed a fairway, all they have been allowed to do is advance the ball to the next portion of fairway. They can’t go in the rough and try to hit the ball on to the green. Everything is dictated to them by the golf course."

As an indication of what we are missing, think of St Andrews. Nothing is dictated to the player there. He can do whatever he wants. He can drive off with a putter if he wishes. He can play whatever shot he thinks is best suited to the terrain in front of him. Take the last hole: golfers of any standard can play it with any and every club in the bag.

Here, of course, the USGA want the ability to drive the ball into a 30-yard wide gap to be part of the test. On the surface, that sounds sensible. But it isn’t. The problem is purely one of execution. Plotting the most advantageous route to the hole doesn’t enter the equation.

The counter-argument to the ‘US Opens are boring’ mantra is that this sort of ‘golf’ is all about handling yourself mentally, staying patient, waiting for your chance.

"Patience is the wrong word," says Rick Smith, who has coached Lee Janzen to two US Open wins, and also works with Phil Mickelson. "It’s perseverance. You have to forget fairness. It isn’t fair. It’s not supposed to be fair. So you’re not going to like it. But you have to do it."

Few can, of course. In truth, the average eight-handicapper could not play Bethpage. He couldn’t break 100. At perhaps three holes, he could not even reach the fairway. The carry at the 10th, for example, is more than 250 yards. In flat calm conditions last Thursday morning, five of the first nine drives did not reach the short grass. Even career tee-shots from Hale Irwin and Corey Pavin, both past winners of this championship, would have left them hacking out to the fairway. Madness.

Perhaps Nick Price put it best. Before the championship had even begun, the former Open and USPGA champion said that he "couldn’t wait to come back and play this great course when it is set up properly".

Maybe in a month or so, Nick, after the mowers have done what is their long-overdue work.

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

Andy Hodson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2002, 12:41:39 PM »
Amen, John.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2002, 12:47:18 PM »
An awful lot of good insight

Joe
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

Andy Hodson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2002, 01:17:54 PM »
My actual comment 30 minutes into watching the telecast on Thursday was that this was going to be the most boring Open to watch since Hale Irwin won at Winged Foot. Watching the best shot makers in the world wedge out up the fairway continually is not compelling.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2002, 02:18:27 PM »
John:  Very good thoughts.  You give all students and afficianados of the game pause for thought.
Best
Dave Miller
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2002, 04:29:57 PM »
John Huggan:

Appreciate the perspective but when was a US Open ever prepared differently -- maybe you might be able to say Pinehurst in '99. The US Open has always been a grind in which players know the "tortures" that await them for bad play.

The Open set-up has been passed on through the years of Joe Dey as Exec Dir to present times. You can make a case that the Open is now pro forma in the manner in which its advance team gets the course ready for the event.

I look at the four majors as requiring different strengths. At the US Open patience is the key. But the best argument is look at the leaderboard -- the two best players are battling for the top prize. ;)

P.S. Total length for the Black is just over 7,200 yards. Does anyone think we are seriously going to return to the days of courses with 6,500 yards playing host to the National Championship?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

A_Clay_Man

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2002, 04:47:36 PM »
A great statement for why ANGC should return to it's original design principles. Much more exciting Golf
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2002, 05:28:51 PM »
John Huggan,

I believe you're incorrect with respect to an important facet of the Open set up, the rough.

The rough is benign relative to past opens when the rough was six inches and worse.  The fact that the wet weather made the rough worse, didn't prevent players from attempting to reach the greens from the rough.

Years ago, a wedge bailout was the required shot.

The USGA has backed off the deep rough conditions of years ago, thereby creating the options you seek.

Secondly, most of what you state is history, the reality is the Open is being hosted today, with today's equipment and today's players.  Should the course be set up for the equipment and player of twenty (20) years ago ??

let me ask you these questions:

HOW WOULD YOU SET UP THE COURSE ??

How would you design the course for the greatest players in the world, today's touring pro ?

Before the rains came on Friday, the pros were singing the praises of Bethpage black.

Rather than criticize, try to come up with solutions.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

CB

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2002, 05:44:57 PM »
The U.S. Open is great because it IS so different from any other tournament.  Variety of challenge across tournaments is more important to me than variety of challenge within a tournament; golf tournaments should be different from each other!  Once a year with a setup like this is just right...but not twice (Carnoustie '99)!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin Hanrahan

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2002, 06:49:57 PM »
The question was asked "How would you set the course up?"

I would have thought that for visitors to this site the answer was simple...as it was designed to be!

If a golf course holds challenges and interest for a player (professional or not) then those same challenges should be enhanced for a tournament, not removed to conform to a "one size fits all" setup that apparently befits Tournament A, B or C.

Golf courses, by definition, are unique. No two pieces of land are the same and the wind blows in different directions every day.

Leave them that way. A US Open (or any other tournament) doesn't give you the right to set them up the same. If the USGA wants to persist with this nonsense that there is a US Open-type of golf course they would be best advised to purchase an expanse of land and build their own course with 500 yard par fours, narrow fairways, obsolete bunkering and beer tents on every tee and return there each year.

If they don't want to pursue this goal, they can go out and  look around for challenging golf courses that offer many different things to many different players and 9 times out of ten produce quality winners...and leave them be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt Kardash

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #10 on: June 16, 2002, 06:56:00 PM »
the US open is so boring..i literally fell asleep at one point..it's funny.. of the 3 american majors, the PGA is the one that the pros would least like to win but has the best setup in my opinion...actually i'd rather watch the players championship...it's played on a course that is less than 7000 yards, has reasonable rough, wide fairways, and manages to get a winning score in the -5  to -10 range..and most importantly the course is setup with plenty of strategy and interest...but i'm sure i'm wrong as usual
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
the interviewer asked beck how he felt "being the bob dylan of the 90's" and beck quitely responded "i actually feel more like the bon jovi of the 60's"

Bruceski

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2002, 06:59:30 PM »
Thank you, Patrick.

I thought the tournament was highly entertaining, and the course emphasized the use of every club in the bag. There was a bias towards the aerial game, to be certain, but the course also tested driving ability, putting, some ground game, course manangement, sand play, and fighting the elements. In the end, the best players rose to the top, and some of them weren't necessarily long hitters (Maggert and Faldo, for example). Tiger, Phil, and Sergio performed well not because they hit the ball the farthest  but because they have the most complete games (BTW, last I checked, Duval hits the ball a mile and he didn't make the cut! Same could be said for a number of other players),

Oh yeah. The Black Course sure has some flat greens!  ;)

Will people please stop using the word "abomination" when talking about this course and this USGA setup? Given the proceedings and outcome of this U.S. Open, I think such a description is ridiculous.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Matt_Ward

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #12 on: June 16, 2002, 07:12:22 PM »
The proof of the pudding is the taste -- the proof of the BB leaderboard is obvious -- case closed! ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #13 on: June 16, 2002, 07:29:02 PM »
Justin Hanrahan,

How was Bethpage designed to be set up ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #14 on: June 16, 2002, 07:31:07 PM »
I agree with the posts of Pat, Matt, CB, Bruceski etc, this Open was on a great course that was set up to be a real test of a type and those that were there at the end were not anomalies! The players certainly seeemed to admire and respect Bethpage--summed up by Faldo's remark; "This is a serious golf course!"

The US Open isn't the type of highly strategic golf that many of us seem to like so much but it's not intended to be I guess. It's a different type of test!

Next is the British Open and that will probably be much more of the strategic type test--a different type test. Masters and PGA different type tests too. So if a golfer does well in all of them or even wins them all as Woods might he would have then excelled in up to four different types of tests!

Would that not be better and more interesting and a greater overall test than a single type of test at four tournaments?

He would then have to be considered the compleat golfer able to handle almost anything, don't you think?

I certainly didn't think it was boring and I only fell asleep for about 30 minutes and only because I ate too much and had a slight fadeout about 20 minutes later.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #15 on: June 16, 2002, 07:46:34 PM »
The criticism of the USGA and their set up of the US Open presented here by John Huggan is what we have heard many times before.  In fact, we have heard it so many times that it has become rather predictable and boring, in my opinion.

Huggan seems to suggest that the US Open should be more like the British Open.  That makes as much sense as making the British Open more like the US Open.  Didn't we learn that lesson at Carnoustie?

The four major championships should be viewed as a collection of unique events designed to challenge the finest players in the world.  Each event should be different, including the way the venues are prepared for play.

It makes perfect sense for one of the four majors to place a disproportionate emphasis on accuracy, on the importance of driving the ball in the fairway and hitting greens.  It makes perfect sense for one of the four majors to be a test of penal golf.  It makes perfect sense that the US Open be the major that offers this specific challenge.

We shouldn't blur the distinctions between golf's major championships, as Augusta National is unfortunately doing with the introduction of rough for the Masters.  Nor should we criticize the USGA for a set up clearly designed for one event testing a small elite of the world's finest golfers.

I hope the R&A has the good sense never to repeat the Carnoustie experience and the USGA has the good sense to ignore all this talk about "options" and "strategy".

Let's keep the two major Open championships as different as they can possibly be.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #16 on: June 16, 2002, 07:49:34 PM »
Tom Paul:

I'm quite happy to see your support for the concept of keeping the four majors as different tests.  It's beyond me why anyone would want to make them all the same kind of test.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #17 on: June 16, 2002, 07:53:44 PM »
Tim:

I was trying to think who it was who so strongly advocated a very different type of test for the four majors and of course that was you. I do agree with you much more now than I did before! I think, like in architecture itself, the fact of difference is generally a very good thing!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #18 on: June 16, 2002, 07:56:23 PM »
John has given us all something to think about but in the end the best player will win, regardless.  The US Open will always be different than other tournaments and while we can think about and debate John's points in the end the OPEN is still the best.

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

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #19 on: June 16, 2002, 07:57:29 PM »
PS -  In the end it was pretty entertaining.

Cheers again,
Dave
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin Hanrahan

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #20 on: June 16, 2002, 08:03:12 PM »
Patrick

Having not played or walked the course, I cannot offer detailed opinions, but I can offer this thought...if the course has been changed dramatically from the way it plays every other day of the year (and in this case, its existence) then it is fair to say it has been doctored to be a US Open set up.

I believe it no longer becomes a BB set up when this is done. Short of playing from the back tees where mere mortals might play from further forward, why change what works the rest of the time.

As for the people who find US Open set ups fair and reasonable merely because it creates a fourth concept on the "major" roster, how would you accept such trickery to a course you had a hand in designing? My guess is not too favourably...

Surely taking all thought processes out of the game and butchering a fine course is justified by saying "well, gee, that was something different, wasn't it?!?"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Justin Hanrahan

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #21 on: June 16, 2002, 08:07:31 PM »
Patrick

Having not played or walked the course, I cannot offer detailed opinions, but I can offer this thought...if the course has been changed dramatically from the way it plays every other day of the year (and in this case, its existence) then it is fair to say it has been doctored to be a US Open set up.

I believe it no longer becomes a BB set up when this is done. Short of playing from the back tees where mere mortals might play from further forward, why change what works the rest of the time.

As for the people who find US Open set ups fair and reasonable merely because it creates a fourth concept on the "major" roster, how would you accept such trickery to a course you had a hand in designing? My guess is not too favourably...

Surely taking all thought processes out of the game and butchering a fine course is justified by saying "well, gee, that was something different, wasn't it?!?"
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #22 on: June 16, 2002, 08:14:58 PM »
Justin:

You might call it 'trickery' but I wouldn't. Has a US Open ever set up a golf course just the way it's set up for play every other day of the year?  I really don't think so!

Tournament set-ups can be very interesting to play and understand and thank God they are different than everyday play. Of course a tournament can resort to trickery but that's not necessary with really good architecture--a really good tournament set-up on a great course can be as different from the way a course is set-up and plays every other day of the year as the difference between night and day!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Bruceski

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #23 on: June 16, 2002, 08:22:35 PM »
Didn't know where to put this thought, so I'll stick it here.

Anyone besides me gain some positive sentiment towards Phil (Floppy) Mickelson after his performance and graciousness during this U.S. Open? The guy was the best loser I've ever witnessed. He gave a great post-round interview (even tolerating an awkward interruption to watch Tiger putt on 18 ), and seemed genuinely happy with the entire event. No wonder the crowds were pulling for him! He's become significantly more likable.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:06 PM by -1 »

Tim Weiman

Re: Highly-entertaining golf becomes a crushing bo
« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2002, 08:27:21 PM »
Justin,

I don't see any "trickery" in the way Bethpage Black was set up.  To win the US Open, a player was simply forced to:

hit straight tee shots
hit accurate iron/approach shots
control putting distance on very fast greens.

What is wrong with asking the very finest players to take such an examination once a year?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back