[Phil McDade]

Watching Mike Weir treat the Black like the old GMO in Milwaukee makes me wonder:

Does the set-up approach of the USGA's Mike Davis -- much-praised by golfers for being more "playable" and not as punishing as those of Meeks -- depend a lot on ideal weather conditions, i.e., avoiding rain and wet conditions? For instance, Oakmont proved really challenging for the players, relative to par, yet a guy like Cabrera could still miss a lot of fairways and win the Open. Torrey Pines last year proved similarly challenging. Both had, from what I remember, ideal weather conditions leading into and during the tourney.

The Black will obviously not dry out by tourney's end, and we could easily see another birdie-fest Sunday or Monday, or the day after the next weather system moves through. I have to think that things like the graduated rough, non-diabolical pin positions, and widending/opening of fairways -- intended to avoid making the US Open a slog, but more a test of shotmaking -- have made the Black much easier for these guys under these conditions.

The USGA was criticized when its set-up for, to take one example, Shinnecock -- described by ideal leading up to the tourney re. fast-and-firm for a course that lends itself to those conditions -- went over the top when the winds really picked up that Saturday night before the final round. Should Davis come under similar criticism for what's taking place today? (Caveat -- I know it's one day, and one day only, but this is pretty easy stuff -- Toms could be around 62 or 61 if he had brought his putter today; Weir may get there.)

[Phil Benedict]

There's some good scores being made out there but that often happens in the first round.  I suppose the 'problem' this year is that the course is likely to play soft all four rounds, in which case scoring may conceivably be lower than normal.  That certainly doesn't rise to the level of tragedy.

The objective should be to provide compelling golf in normal conditions, not to protect against some remote contingency like the New York area having a monsoon season!

[Tim Gavrich]

I think that time will tell about Davis' setup.  Even though the fairways and greens will stay soft, I don't think we're headed for a winning score in double-digits under par.  Three factors are going to keep scores pretty high in spite of the wetness.  First, I've got to believe that the pin positions will get a good bit tougher as the tournament progresses.  Second, while the rough isn't overly long, it can only get thicker and longer and wetter as the week goes on.  And third, of course, is the pressure factor, which keeps the players close to the top from going really low.  Even if Weir ends up at -7 or even -8 after today, I don't think the winning score will be much better than -5 or -6.  I could be wrong, but in my recollection of past U.S. Opens, the winning score never ends up being much better than the first round lead score.

[Richard Choi]

You knew they were in trouble when JT scored 88!!!

[David Stamm]

:

Does the set-up approach of the USGA's Mike Davis -- much-praised by golfers for being more "playable" and not as punishing as those of Meeks -- depend a lot on ideal weather conditions, i.e., avoiding rain and wet conditions?

All course set ups depend on conditions.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

this will be the best weather day of them all.  still think even par will look good at the end... its not like you have a bunch of under par rounds going right now and scoring conditions are almost ideal (tees up greens soft and sunny).

[Phil Benedict]

DD shot a 67.  Would love to see him hold it together and contend.  He seems to be able to play well for stretchs, which suggests he still has a lot of game.  

Weir is back to 4-under; made a double on 6.  Maybe this is the normal gravitational pull towards even par that we always see in US Opens.

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil -

I opined on another thread that Meeks wasn't the problem, and that Davis (while a top flight professional) isn't the solution.  

If there is a problem, it's the ever-greater focus on course set-up that resulted from the 2004 Open at Shinnecock. (I really wish they hadn't "lost control" of the Redan on that last day.)  As long as the focus is on the set-up, it's not on the architecture. As long as we're focusing on the Next Great Idea (e.g. graduated rough) we're not focusing on Fundamenal Strategic Principles.

Now, maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't... But have films gotten any better since people started focusing on how a movie does at the box office? Is that really the primary way (or even just one of the ways) we want to spend our time talking about a film and its merits? And if box-office talk does start to dominate the discussion, won't it continue to "work backwards" and ever-more directly shape the way a film is designed/made?

Peter

[Phil Benedict]

Peter,

I think the US Open being about the set up goes back way before Tom Meeks.  Certainly as far back as I can remember, which is the early '60's.  Can anybody remember a US Open where the course set up was even close to the set up during regular play as far as fairway width, green speed and rough?

[Peter Pallotta]

Phil - agreed. But decades of discussion have not led to the end of discussion but instead only to new KINDS of solutions. And I'm suggesting that those solutions (no matter how good they seem at the moment) aren't really solutions, they are part of the problem. I really don't mean to take a single thing away from a dedicated professional like Mike Davis -- he's doing what he thinks best, within the parametres set way above his pay-scale...maybe above any one single person's pay-scale...

Peter

[Phil Benedict]

Peter,

I don't think there is any way to avoid the focus on set up, particularly with the gap between the best in the world and everyone else getting bigger.  The only event that seems to be able to rely on the architecture and nature is the Open Championship.

[Kalen Braley]

I really don't see how this is a "Mike Davis" problem, or any problem for that matter.

With the high launch angles these guys have they can still get plenty of distance off the tee to get in range to stick darts on the greens.  Additionally as fairways are wet, tee balls won't roll off into the rough nearly as much.

So how is Mike Davis at fault here?  Should he have turned the fairways into bowling alleys like the infamous CarNasty Open in 99? Placed cops in the fairways? Installed land mines randomly under patches of fairway?

I don't see why these low scores would be percieved as bad, given that everyone uses thier brain to understand why they are lower than normal.

[Phil_the_Author]

Amazing... so many complaints that the USGA protects par at the expense of any birdies and excitement and one day when it happens there are complaints about the setup...

[Phil McDade]

Thanks for all the responses -- I didn't necessarily think that Davis should be criticized, just wanted to play a bit of a devil's advocate.

Philip Young -- I for one have never, in this forum or others, criticized the USGA for protecting par at the US Open. I like to see these guys struggle -- really struggle -- to get pars in this major. I think the four majors ought to have distinctly different takes -- and for the US Open, it ought to be a tough slog. For my tastes, a US Open course/conditions/set-up that yields winning scords of -8 is not the kind of test it ought to be.

I do think if the Black had been set up under Meeks (who I agree let things go, notably at Shinnecock and Olympic), you wouldn't see the scores we've been seeing this year. Some may view that as a good thing; I find it a bit off-putting to see guys spinning balls out of the rough at the US Open.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

they won't be spinning out of rough next year.  chalk this one up to the ball and the grooves...

[Phil_the_Author]

Phil,

At this rate the winning score will be about 8-under... how is that disappointing or a reflection of a poor set-up?

Secondly, please consider that instead of the usual 4-5 toughest holes locations per round, that they have opted for easier ones for the first two rounds because of the possible disparity in scoring that the weather may cause.

If they had been tough hole locations for the first round, all those who suffered at the hands of the weather would have been at a greater disadvantage than those who were in the "afternoon" group. Likewise, it will be play more balanced tomorrow for those who have to experience the weather.

The hole locations for rounds 3 & 4 will definitely be far more challenging and as the field will be much smaller will also be far more fair...

[Phil McDade]

Philip:

I realize pin positions will get tougher, as they usually do in majors on the weekends, although Davis noted they set them up Thursday in consideration of the rain, and I wonder if the same will occur with the rain forecast this weekend.

My thoughts aren't meant to criticize the Black, but question whether the evolution in the set-up of the US Open under Davis is weather-dependent. After all, graduated rough can make sense with dry conditions, because players loose on their drives risk going in it. But the fairways at the Black under Davis this year have gotten bigger, the weather has made them much easier to hit, and -- from what I saw of guys hitting out of the rough so far -- you have to be really wild off the tee to land in true trouble this year.

Sure, it's a tough balance, but the USGA does this only once a year, and they have a full year (or more, considering some of what's going on at Open-wannabes like Erin Hills) to get it right. For my tastes, 64s and -8 as a final score don't represent the test that I'd like to see at a US Open.

[Ian Andrew]

I think he's proven to be very good at working with the circumstance he has been given. He backed off because of the weather and a few players have done well.

If the field – rather than a couple of guys begins to score – he will simply push the difficulty up a notch. I’ve been very impressed with what he’s doing here and what he's done in the past.

Stop fretting - its not even half way.

p.s. the right guy was leading after the first round

[BCrosby]

Phil  -

To be clear, I have no problem with low winning scores. I do not think low numbers signify somehow that the course was beaten. I think it is loopy to think that way. (What does it mean to "beat" a golf course, anyhow? Is it like beating an opponent in tennis? Or something else?) My guess is that my views represent a majority here at GCA.

To recycle ideas first expressed by MacK, Bob Jones, Simpson and others, if the best players in the world don't go low when in top form, something is amiss with the set-up or the architecture or both.

Peter -

Interesting post. This is the problem. There is a spillover effect between USGA set-up philosophies and golf architecture. While they are separate issues at one level of abstraction, they aren't perceived that way by the everyday golfer. USGA set-ups are too often seen as the endpoint for permament architecture. That's not good for the game, imho. In fact, that's very bad for the game.

While Davis is certainly an improvement over Meeks, he is still operating within a distinctively American framework where consideratons of sporting equity (at a number of levels) has primacy of place. I note that such ideas are not pre-ordained. They are not inevitable. They have a history that might have turned out very differently. Proof of their contingent nature is that such ideas aren't given the same pride of place in set-up philosophies in Britain.


Bob   

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Bob - an elegant post. It's what I wish I'd written. An evolving framework, not a fixed or inevitable one.  And it would help matters (if matters need helping) if everyone at least recognized that there is a framework... I better stop, I'm just making it worse!

Peter

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

I'm not sure where you got the idea that the set-up philosophies in the (British) Open are any different than those at the (US) Open.  Both events seem to try to create set ups which are "fair" to the extent that the players exhibiting the greater skills will be rewarded with better results.  Both events actively use maintenace practices (over long periods of time) to try to arrive at the course they wish to present to the best players inthe world over a 4-day period.  Sometimes they get it right and sometimes they do not, often because the assumptions they make about the weather are not robust enough.  C'est la vie.  All these kerfufles we seem to have every few years prove to me is that "architecture" is a verb and not a noun--at least when it refers to golf courses.

Rich

[BCrosby]

Rich -

There is a simple, clear difference. The R&A makes relatively minor changes to their rota courses. In some cases, none at all. There is no painstaking attention to stimp readings, there are no thumpers to measure firmness, there is (relatively) little mucking about with rough heights and widths, courses aren't closed for weeks to get the turf just right, there are few permanent design changes to fit certain notions of how a major venue ought to play and none of the rota courses has ever been rebuilt just to host an Open. (BTW, making new tees is not a permanent design change because you and I will never play them.)

Those are all major considerations in the preparation of US venues, sometimes leading to signifcant permanent changes to golf courses, sometimes more temporary changes. And one way or another, they are all inspired by a clear sense at US sanctioning bodies that those changes are necessary to assure a fair, truly competitive venue. I think that is a uniquely (and actually quite odd) US approach to things.

Of course the R&A has concerns about "fairness". But by all the evidence their concerns are at a much lower boil or, perhaps, they have a different understanding of the term in the context of golf. Which I think quite likely.

The test for that is how the USGA and the R&A translate their concerns about fairness in their tournament venues. That evidence suggests to me that they have very different ideas about what "fairness" means and its place relative to other considerations in setting up venues.

I do worry, however, that in the last couple of years the R&A is edging closer to the USGA model. I think that would be real loss for golf.

Bob  

[Phil McDade]

Somebody (who's played the Black a bunch) agrees with me...

---------------------------------------------------------------

Robert Mercer Deruntz
Full Member

 Offline

Posts: 899


I love GCA!


    Re: Double Standards and the US Open
« Reply #29 on: Today at 07:54:17 AM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DSchmidt--until you have played Bethpage, you are unqualified to make such statements.  Lucas Glover at this point in his career is easily as good as Furyk.  Wier wears a jacket that you will never wear.  At this point it is less than 36 holes,  at the completion of the competition we will then know how the course held up.
  Having played both courses, the Black is certainly superior.  No question that Olympia Fields is a great course, but Bethpage has more great holes and can be a far superior test.  I've played over 40 competitive rounds on the Black and have never seen conditions as easy as they currently exist.  The USGA made a miscue in the graduated rough--the first area is 1 inch too low and the same can be said for the second rough area.  Last year the rough in the NY State open was tougher than anything I experienced at Olympic in 1998.  This contrasted with several 3 woods struck on the 13th from the rough versus SW's at best in last year's NY Open.  The graduated rough strategy was dependant upon firm and fast conditions--3 inches of rain on Thursday after 5 inches the week before does not help create such conditions.
 
 Report to moderator    Logged
 

[Phil McDade]

Found another who agrees!

-------------------------------------------------

  Author Topic: Bethpage Black Yields All-Time Low Scoring - and not a peep from the media  (Read 640 times) 

Ronald Montesano
Full Member

 Offline

Posts: 761



     Re: Bethpage Black Yields All-Time Low Scoring - and not a peep from the media
« Reply #35 on: Yesterday at 06:47:02 PM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.  The Black is not being set up all the way back.  Davis and Company are making allowances for various weather elements (coolness, wetness, wind.)

2.  What is this crap about being gentle to the course?  Since when are inanimate objects the target of innuendo and accusations?  Not like the soul of Joe Berbeck can lazarize and discuss the course.

3.  I don't think we'll see a metro NY Open until 2020, minimum.  I think 2018 will be Erin Hills, 2019 will be out west and 2020 will return to Shinny if they want it.  Winged Foot as it stands is out of the rota for the next decade or so (their decision, not the USGA's) and Baltusrol is now a PGA course.
 
 

[Niall C]

Rich -

There is a simple, clear difference. The R&A makes relatively minor changes to their rota courses. In some cases, none at all. There is no painstaking attention to stimp readings, there are no thumpers to measure firmness, there is (relatively) little mucking about with rough heights and widths, courses aren't closed for weeks to get the turf just right, there are few permanent design changes to fit certain notions of how a major venue ought to play and none of the rota courses has ever been rebuilt just to host an Open. (BTW, making new tees is not a permanent design change because you and I will never play them.)

Those are all major considerations in the preparation of US venues, sometimes leading to signifcant permanent changes to golf courses, sometimes more temporary changes. And one way or another, they are all inspired by a clear sense at US sanctioning bodies that those changes are necessary to assure a fair, truly competitive venue. I think that is a uniquely (and actually quite odd) US approach to things.

Of course the R&A has concerns about "fairness". But by all the evidence their concerns are at a much lower boil or, perhaps, they have a different understanding of the term in the context of golf. Which I think quite likely.

The test for that is how the USGA and the R&A translate their concerns about fairness in their tournament venues. That evidence suggests to me that they have very different ideas about what "fairness" means and its place relative to other considerations in setting up venues.

I do worry, however, that in the last couple of years the R&A is edging closer to the USGA model. I think that would be real loss for golf.

Bob  

Bob

Not sure how the R&A and USGA evaluate fairness but in terms of influencing course set up I would suggest that the R&A don't simply take a laissez faire approach as you imply. For one thing I play at an Open Qualifier course and have suffered a set-up where rough adjacent to fairway has been left uncut for months, has had fertiliser applied to make it grow thicker and indeed the lines of the fairways have been brought in to narrow landing areas. I know that one other nearby Open Qualifier course is getting similiar treatment. This is the same treatment that the championship course gets, all at the behest of the R&A.

The R&A also have a hand in making significant changes to the courses on the rota, beyond just the set-up, but actual re-designs ie. last years 17th green, this years relocation of the 16th fairway and all the new bunkers at the first etc. I'm not knocking them for doing it but I assume they do it with some specific intention and that fairness probabaly plays a part of that.

Niall   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()