[Mark_Fine]

Very well stated JOhn!   I was traveling and didn't make it to the tourney but from those who I talked to that were there, the course setup was a joke!  Just a shame they ruin such a good golf course.  Carnoustie all over again    They got the scores they wanted so it was a success.  

[Mike_Cirba]

It's tough to argue with a course setup where Woods, Mickelson, Garcia, Faldo, Harrington, Price, Hoch, and Maggert rose to the top, and where both Corey Pavin and John Daly made the cut.

Where the hell was Monty??  Bethpage should have played to many of his strengths.

I think the only mistake the USGA made was the silly carry required on 10 earlier in the week.  When most golfers can't even reach the fairway, that's a situation worthy of rectifying.

As to John's original point, there is no question that the US Open tends to favor testing the swing and nerve much more than any strategic thinking.  Still, the strategy becomes where to hit driver, where to miss, how to play aggressively conservative, how to manage the inevitable trainwrecks, how to take one's punishment for miscues and move on non-dispirited, and how to hit long, straight golf shots under considerable pressure.

Tiger Woods missed only two fairways today.  That's why he is the US Open champion.  To me, that's worthy of the title.

Now, it's on to Muirfield for an entirely different, and equally worthy type of test.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

What was different about the course setup than what you expected?

The fairways were narrowed to normal USGA specs, the initial rough was 3 inches, albeit thick, but not nearly as long as places like Oakmont in the past, the greens, which are not unduly undulating, played pretty soft given the rains, so what exactly made the course Carnoustie-like?

The pretty scary part is that Bethpage Black played about as benignly as possible.  The wind blew for about 11 holes today, and that's it for the week.  For Long Island, that's an anomaly.  The course also played very soft, and the greens were hardly to normal USGA levels of firmness.

Mark; you know I'm teasing you, but you are the one who argued that the pros would tear the place apart.  What was so unusual about the course setup that prevented that, particularly given the soft conditions and lack of wind?    

[TEPaul]

Woods may have only missed two fairways yesterday but the first fairway he missed was an indication to me that the rough set-up at that US Open was OK (for an Open). He probably had 150-160 to the green but he wasn't forced to lay-up--he is strong as hell and he hit an abrieviated swing iron right at the rather narrow opening in the green and rolled the ball through it onto the back of the green.

That was a gutsy US Open type recovery and also a recovery type shot of a champion who knows how to manufacturer  something when need be! If the recovery shot is really such a prized commodity--that was sure a good one and a smart one!

It also indicated that despite considerable rain the course was still releasing through the green, still allowing creative recovery shots!

[Matt_Ward]

Mark Fine:

You doth protest too much!

Since the Black did not yield to double-digit under-par, as you believed it would, it seems quite apparent that you now flip-flop back to the standard rationality that the course setup was a "joke" and "Carnoustie" all over again. Mark, how bout stand front and center and admit you goofed on your prediction that the pros would run the tables!

Mark, the Black presented an equal opportunity for just about any competitor who had the b*lls to hang in there. Again, look at the pedigree of the leaderboard -- you have players known for power (Woods, Mickelson, Garcia) and precision type players who hung in there (Faldo, Maggert, Hoch).

Mike Cirba pointed out quite correctly that BB was moist from a major thunderstorm that hit the course during the Buick Classic a week earlier and was further "slowed down" by rains through the middle of the championship. In addition, when the wind did pick up it was for only half of a day during the final round. This allowed players to shoot directly at #4 with their second shot and for them to land near the pin and stay there on holes such as #17.

If BB had played hard and fast it would have been quite interesting to see what would have happened.

I've seen plenty of Open (over 25) and the set up at BB was nothing more than what I've seen at previous Opens. The greens did not present the "gotcha" style you find at other renowned Open courses with 10 feet of break in an eight-foot putt. More importantly, there was room enough for those willing to hit driver if they elected to do so. Tiger missed only two fairways in the final round.

BB doesn't have any gimmicks -- it's all in front of you -- plain and simple.

My only question related to the placement of certain tees (#10 and #12) when the rain was coming down heavily on Friday. A slight adjustment was indeed appropriate and again demonstrated another lesson to Tom Meeks.

BB has proven from both a course and logistical perspective to be a layout that should host additional majors in the 21st century. It's time for some of the old stand-by courses to understand that just as Tiger woke up professional golf with his greatness so has BB as a layout that for too long has been in the shadows. Not anymore ...

[Ed_Baker]

That punch 8 iron that Tiger hit out of the rough and managed to hit it to the 5 yard opening in front of the green was amazing. The strength required to hit the shot was befitting the best golfer in the world in his prime. The fact that the shot was pulled off, punctuates the USGA's ideaology for the set up of Open courses, Sergio nearly pulled off a miraculous shot on 18 from the rough falling just short in to the bunker. I much prefer this type of shot option to the six inch, no chance rough, of previous opens.

I have no problem with this type of examination once a year for the best in the world. It sets the Open apart from the eagle/birdie fests of the regular PGA Tour, as it should, in my opinion.

[BCrosby]

The problem with US Open set ups has nothing to do with the tournament. The USGA can set up a course any way they want. It is their tournament.  

The problem - and it is a very big problem - is the pernicious influence these kinds of course set ups have on golf course architecture in the US.  

Too many clubs think that a golfing test ought to be exclusively about nerves, length and a repeating swing. That's pretty much the beginning and end of the things being tested by the USGA at its Opens.  

Other kinds of course set ups that test a player's ability to think strategically, make good decisions, and take appropriate risks. Personally, that is the kind of golf I enjoy playing and watching. Very little of that was on display at BB.  Maybe that's why I didn't watch much of it over the weekend.

Again, its the USGA's event. They have their preferences, I've got mine.

It only matters because at the next tournament at my club, they will be using BB as a model for setting up the course. It did not begin with BB, of course. This pernicious USGA influence has been around since the USGA set up Oakland Hills in the arly 1950's.  

The USGA's lack of golfing imagination wouldn't matter but for the fact that they influence - profoundly - how the everyday green committee chairman views golf course architecture.  And until the USGA outgrows this "monster" course thing, us guys on the ground are going to have to fight the good fight against these local greens chairmen and their allies at the USGA command center.


Bob  

[Mark_Fine]

Come on guys, forget the leaderboard!  The best players in the world almost always rise to the occasion when a major is being played.  We all know Tiger can win on any set up and has proved it many times.  

I admit, I was wrong (not even close) in my score prediction    I just didn't think they would make the rough that penal.  According to the guys I talked to (they've been to every U.S. Open for the last 15 years), it was the toughest rough they had ever seen.  I think the USGA was overprotecting because of concern about the greens.  However, I also learned (and should have known) that flat greens are not as flat as you think they are when rolling at 13 or higher.

I still think Nick Price said it best, "This will be a great golf course, once they cut the grass"!  

Mark

[A_Clay_Man]

Mark Fine- Please send checks to GCA.com

thank you

[Dave_Miller]

Mark:  It wasn't just the rought.  Bethpage Black took the best these guys could throw at it and yielded par to only one player.  

Cheers

Dave

[Tim Weiman]

Mark Fine:

I'm still at a loss to understand why people complain about USGA set ups for the US Open.

Why shouldn't the most elite golfers face an examination that emphasizes straight tee shots, accurate iron shots and the ability to putt on very fast greens once a year?

Why do you want to blur the distinctions between the four major championships

[GeoffreyC]

Mark

You're WRONG about the rough at Bethpage.  I was frankly shocked on Tuesday at how low it was.  It was cut to 3 1/2 inches.  Players had a chance to advance the ball more so then in other recent opens.  Witness numerous attempts to get to the green from the primary rough. I saw Justin Leonard go with a WOOD on Thurday on 16 and get the ball into a greenside bunker on 16.  There was certainly a bit of chance with the lie and wedges into the fairway were common but not automatic.

The setup at Bethpage was quite fair.

[George Pazin]

I'll second Bob Crosby's sentiments - I have no problem with the US Open being this type of examination, but I do think it sets a poor precedent, much like the Masters sets poor precedents with things like unrealistic conditioning & the recent obsession with changes contrary to the founders beliefs like added length & rough.

I don't have a problem with the 4 different tests, but it would nice if someone occasionally pointed that out on TV. Would it be too much to ask to have someone mention this philosophy?

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby makes a very necessary point about the US Open type set-up filtering down to golf clubs as something that should be used for everyday play and everyday maintenance in the minds of many clubs and courses. It can be a very pernicious influence for sure.

But does that mean the USGA and the US Open should  forego their type of set-up so as not to create such a pernicious influence?

I hope I'm being somewhat realistic by saying it does not! Those people that oversee golf courses around this country should be educated enough about the differences in maintenance and set-ups for tournaments for various types of golfers and that of maintenance and set-up for everyday play! In a sense this to me is understanding this thing called "maintenance meld", how important it really is and also the wide spectrum of "playability" it can create, both to their benefit and detriment depending on how and what they do.

The spectrum of "maintenance meld" that can be applied to a golf course can show a great deal about the quality of the golf course and its architecture without getting "tricky" or taking the golf course "over the top" in playability for any level!

Again, I recognize that the USGA and their "Open type set-up" can be pernicious for those that have a "one size fits all' mentality but people running golf clubs have a responisiblity to understand more than that if they're in the positions they're in both about the architecture of their particular course and the spectrum of how it can be set-up and maintained best for them at any particular time and event.

Again, a "one size fits all" mentality is a dangerous one and quite honestly a stupid one! Difference is good and that includes architecture, maintenance and set up! Despite what the USGA does for their annual Open Championship, those running golf courses should begin to understand that!

[Chip Royce]

AMEN!!!

Sorry I got to the thread so late, I wish I had seen the posting sooner.

Having grown up on a junior version of the Black, Tillinghast's Southward Ho, CC., and having played the Black back in 96, I was very disappointed on the setup of the course for the tournament.

The elevated greens, a trademark of his courses, usually have one  angle to which the green is receptive to one's shot. Otherwise, should a player come in from the wrong line, the green will feed the ball away from the hole.

Unfortunately, the narrowing of the fairways took that type of strategy away from the player, the course played very uninterestingly as a result.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

It is perhaps my personal misfortune, but the greens chairmen I know would have no idea what "maintenance meld" means or that there are set ups for a club championship other than the set ups used by the USGA.  

They don't read this site, they don't read golf course architecture books.  

But they did watch the US Open on TV yesterday.

To the thread generally -

I disagree that there are four different major tests in golf.  Seems to me that Augusta and the PGA are both gravitating rapidly to the USGA monster model.  Witness the Fazio changes to ANGC and witness the set up at Atlanta Athletic Club last summer.  With some minor exceptions, those are US Open/USGA set ups.  I would expect that trend to continue, not abate.  Soon there won't be a nickel's worth of difference in three of the four majors.

The Open will always be a different test, though that tournament also seems to be sliding inexorably towards a USGA model.  Witness Carnoutie a couple of years ago.  It will be interesting to see the Muirfield set up.

Bob    

[Tim Weiman]

BCrosby:

The point I have been arguing for some time now is that the four majors SHOULD be very different.  That is what is wrong with growing rough at Augusta or British Open set ups like Carnoustie.

I've noticed most criticism of USGA set ups include what Tom Paul calls a "one size fits all" mentality.  People lament about the lack of "options" or "strategy" as if traditional R&A or Augusta set ups should be imposed on the USGA.

Again, I've yet to hear anyone make a case for blurring the distinctions between the four majors.  Anything that makes these events more similiar is bad, in my opinion.

Neither the R&A nor Augusta should follow the USGA model.  And, we need to find something unique for the PGA.  An emphasis on introducting new designs and/or match play format would be a positive step.

[Mike_Cirba]

Although I don't have any problem with the once-a-year USGA setup as a "test" for a major event, I think there is a lot of truth to what Bob Crosby and others are arguing as far as perceptions down to the grass-roots level.

Think about what we're all shown as the "ideal".  LONG, tight, penal, high rough, forced carries, stimping at 14, one way or the highway golf.  That is what is communicated and I believe it's naive to think it doesn't have a large, resounding influence.

Bob is also correct when he argues that both the Masters and PGA have become more US Open like in recent years.  Even the R&A tried to do it at Carnoustie, although word I've heard from Muirfield sounds very encouraging (i.e reasonable rough, firm and fast) for some excitingly strategic golf.

If anyone thinks that Bethpage Black rough was severe, and a once a year anomaly for a "special test", they should see what they've got growing over at Merion these days.  They are letting the secondary rough grow to knee height, although I don't know the reasons yet.  Hopefully, they'll also widen some fairways consistent with their 1930 original course theme.  

[TEPaul]

George Pazin:

On this question of whether or not the USGA should continue with their "Open type set-up" and if it's a pernicious influence on other courses or not, of course your comment is absolutely the most commonsensical and logical of all and would be the answer to everything.

If they continue with their type of set-up and wish to get rid of the pernicious influence it may have, all they need to do is mention it on TV at the US Open. They definitely have the attention of millions of people at that time and that would disabuse almost everyone of the idea of copying them if they would mention the distinctions and the reasons why in no uncertain terms!!

[Bruceski]

Shorter, "strategic" courses offer no challenge to the professionals. Open up the fairways and you remove all strategy. Watching the pros in person Saturday impressed me how easy the 170-200 yd iron has become for these guys. Adjacent to the Black's 16th fairway I stood for one hour with my brother. Group after group was left with this distance to a relatively "tucked" hole location. Player after player seemed to effortlessly stick his approach to within 20 feet. It was incredible. These guys just don't miss very often from a fairway lie within 200 yds. I'd guess they're better than 85% at knocking it close from that distance.

My point. What difference does it make which side of the fairway these guys play to on a strategic course if they can always drive it to within 200 yds? That distance gives them a green light special on any approach from any angle to any hole location.

The only way to test the modern professional is to lengthen the course, narrow the target areas, and speed up the greens. Strategy, outside of basic course management (which they are ALL good at), is not a relevant concept to the modern pro anymore. For this reason (and call me heretical), the USGA has it right (and so does Augusta!).

[sam makita]

That may be true to flat greens. Add some tricky greens to the equation and the strategy is turned up to notches unknown. Shortish courses like Pinehurst, Merion, Pebble Beach, and ANGC have never had difficulty identifying the best players and also providing interesting golf with loads of strategy. What do they all have in common? Undulating greens that complement their strategies.

[Bruceski]

Sam,

The question remains, what do undulating greens really test? Not strategy, in my opinion. The professional golfer quickly learns during his practice rounds before the tournament that for a given hole location he must play the ball to the correct area of the green -- an area that is likely accessible from all areas of the fairway when they're hitting 7-iron or shorter (which they always are on a course less than 7000 yds). Then it becomes a test of putting ability. Nevertheless, there is still no strategy. There is only a test of executing the obviously correct approach shot and making the good putt.

[Rick Shefchik]

So what should the PGA Championship do to distinguish itself from what is perceived by some to be the "boring" examination of golf skills that is the U.S. Open?

I think the answer is obvious -- it's right here on this thread, and it's in the PGA Tour's own slogan: "These guys are good."

So let them be good. Take a solid, basic golf course like Hazeltine, Medinah, Winged Foot, Riveria or Inverness and let the pros play it the way the members play it (from the back tees, obviously): normal rough, normal fairway width, normal green speeds.

Would the winning score be 260? Maybe. So what? The PGA believes that's what fans come to see. Many on this site want at least one major tournament decided by a run of birdies on the back nine, not by the guy who makes the fewest bogies. Why not have the season's last major be a display of fabulous shotmaking and low scores on an otherwise respected golf course?

I know there are club memberships that would resist allowing their courses to be scored upon in this way, but something tells me that kind of setup would be wildly popular with the public, produce some sensational finishes and do no lasting damage to the reputations of the courses involved. If the money is right, the PGA will find good courses willing to host a major under these circumstances.

I happen to like the Open as it is, but the PGA ought to be going in the opposite direction.

[Sam Makita]

Are you saying that the strategy of the 5th at Merion or the 16th at St.Andrews or the 5th at Pinehurst or 13th at Crystal Downs or the 1st at the NGLA are not enhanced by their greens? You best be considering the undulations of these greens when standing on the tee.

[DMoriarty]

Sam,

The question remains, what do undulating greens really test? Not strategy, in my opinion.

Bruceski, I respectfully disagree.

First, undulating greens oftentimes create different shot options for the approach (and even the tee ball)-- One can back shots up off slopes,  bounce balls off ridges, run balls down slopes.  And, undulations and mounds create havoc on thoughtless approaches.  A redan green is a classic example of the slope of a green influencing strategic approach options.

Second, even if there is an ideal place from which to putt at a certain hole location, there is certainly strategy involved in deciding whether it is worth the risk.  A golfer may risk a tricky putt as opposed to shooting for the ideal spot and missing. (See Woods on 18 yesterday)  On non-undulating greens, this is not as much a consideration.

Third, there is strategy to putting:  Hit it hard and take out the break?  Lag off a big hill?  Leave the ball below the hole if you miss.  Lots of decision to make on undulating greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()