Ogilvy on course setup...

[Jason Walker]

http://blogs.golf.com/presstent/2009/08/frustrated-ogilvy-pga-over-course-set-up.html

I personally enjoyed the course set up this year.  Given the wind conditions I feel the PGA did a nice job setting the tees appropriately for many of the controversial (read...LONG) holes.  And I didn't exactly see anyone burning up the "tame" greens.  Ogilivy's comments sure seem like something from a guy who didn't play particularly well and caught a few bad breaks.  Reminds me of something my dad said to me when I was young after I complained about an "unfair" bunker in tournament...."well, just don't hit it in there next round"

[Philippe Binette]

"The difficulty of your shot should be the position the ball is in, not the lie that the ball is in." Geoff Ogilvy

there is some part of intelligence in that comment

[PThomas]

its the same course for all, he should stop whining

[David_Elvins]

I thought what he wrote was pretty good although it is not surprising that a guy who grew up on courses that didnt need rough to be good, doesn't like thick rough.

I think you should have hard shots from good lies, not easy shots from bad lies," he explained. "So if your greens are not good enough to defend themselves without six inches of rough, then the greens aren't good enough. You don't need six-inch rough at Augusta, or at Oakmont, although they grow it. You don't need it at Pinehurst, or Royal Melbourne, or Shinnecock Hills. And if you don't have greens like that, then just let the guys make birdies."

[David_Elvins]

its the same course for all, he should stop whining

Paul,

That does not make a lot of sense to me.  Every tournament is played on the same course for all.  Does that mean that no-one should ever criticise a golf course they play in a tournament?   

What if the PGA was played at a 6200 yard course with sand greens.  Would players be able to criticise it?

[C. Squier]

I thought his comments were right on track, as they usually are regarding GCA.  

CPS

[Andy Troeger]

His comments might be perceptive about GCA, but as a professional golfer his job is to deal with the setup presented, including the ones that don't suit his eye or game.

[Will MacEwen]

His comments might be perceptive about GCA, but as a professional golfer his job is to deal with the setup presented, including the ones that don't suit his eye or game.

So after the event he still shouldn't comment? 

I don't see anywhere where he says it isn't his job to deal with the setup, or that everyone doesn't play the same course.

[Andy Troeger]

His comments might be perceptive about GCA, but as a professional golfer his job is to deal with the setup presented, including the ones that don't suit his eye or game.

So after the event he still shouldn't comment? 

I don't see anywhere where he says it isn't his job to deal with the setup, or that everyone doesn't play the same course.

He can comment all he likes, but if he's put that much thought into it then it would appear that it probably affected his attitude throughout the week. It seems like Ogilvy complains pretty frequently about the setup when he has a mediocre week at a major.

[Matt_Cohn]

I think we saw several times that the super-thick grass around the green reduced or eliminated the players' ability to use skill and imagination to recover. Yeah, it got kinda old to me. Maybe once in a long while it's OK.

[Adam Clayman]

Any continued acceptance of these inferior maintenance presentations is intellectually dishonest. Whether it be on a Pro venue or not.



 

[Tom_Doak]

I thought the more interesting quote was this one from the writer:

"His argument is that a slight miss is often more penalizing than a shot that flies farther away from the intended target."

I think that is a complete misunderstanding of what Ogilvy is trying to say, based on the reporter's understanding of "fairness" in golf.  But if it correctly summarizes Geoff's argument, I'm not sure I agree ... in that instance getting a very bad lie in the long rough is just the rub of the green, isn't it?

[Garland Bayley]

HELLO! Have some of you been paying attention! Geoff has consistently spoken out about what makes good architecture and good golf. I would suggest that Tom Doak, Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw, Mike Wier, Ian Andrew, and many others would be saying very similar things. You get yourself out of position you pay the penalty by your bad position. A well architected golf course should not need six inch rough to be its only defense.

Geoff says the same thing after winning the US Open as he says after losing at Hazeltine! Get off his back and pay attention!

[Andy Troeger]

I actually agree with what he says about GCA for the most part--I just wonder about his timing sometimes.

Good grief fellas, if someone griped about a links design after the Open Championship some of you would have a field day about how he should stop whining and play golf   Just because Ogilvy has a point doesn't mean he's not whining 

[Jason Walker]

Bayley-
In the context of major championship professional golf, what other defenses would a well-architected golf course present?  Length? Fast, hard greens with crazy amounts of contour?  Trees to prevent certain lines?  Well bunkered fairways and greens?  All things that everyone here just loves. 

Geoff himself says it, they're literally trying put the ball into the bunker!  The pro game is so good that extremely difficult shots under pressure are the only defenses in major championships, whether that be a drive to a narrow fairway, or a chip out of high greenside rough.  Were the greens at Hazeltine so small that anything but a perfect approach would find the rough?  Execute the shot, and you need not worry about the rub of the green.

[George Pazin]

Execute the shot, and you need not worry about the rub of the green.

Sorry, but this comment shows a real lack of understanding of golf. The very best players in the world hit two-thirds GIRs; it is a game in which it is impossible to execute all the time, hence the emphasis by many on the need for opportunities with recovery shots.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bayley,

I agree with you.

Jason,

You can deepen your bunkers, as Oakmont did, and you can elevate the fronting berms, which I think Oakmont also did.

The problem with those modifications is their cost and their restoration cost, unless, you want your membership to interface with those same hazards.

I don't mind deepening the bunkers, and, I don't mind introducing fronting berms as long as they're removed when the tournament is over.

The strategic and tactical function of bunkers has been diminished over the years due to conditioning and the extinction of penal bunkers from all but a few golf courses.

It's rare to see a golf course increase the difficulty of their bunkers.
Most clubs soften them in a variety of ways and many clubs have eliminated a good number of bunkers over the years.

I'd like to see the trend reversed, but, I fear that memberships and boards are populated with far too many whiners who claim that any feature that produces adverse results is unfair.

End of rant.

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,

You disagree with Geoff on set up. Research what he says. I simply point out that you do him disservice by implying that he is a whiner. His message is consistent, win or lose.

[Anthony Butler]

Ogilvy  would probably get a better hearing for his opinions if he waited a day or two for the frustration to subside and couched his comments a remedial light versus just blowing off steam.

His comment "The difficulty of your shot should be the position the ball is in, not the lie that the ball is in." very precisely captures his philosophy on how to present a course (and not co-incidentally how the two courses he won on in 2009 looked).

 But not every course is able to present a different look around the green other than a six inch collar and still maintain the challenge for the world's best pros... At Pinehurst, the saucer shaped greens mean you have to execute a pitch from closely clipped grass perfectly to get within six feet of the hole. I haven't seen Hazeltine up close, but if you compare Yang's holed pitch shot on 14 versus Tiger's hacks from the rough from behind the green, it seems that a good lie around those greens substantially reduces the challenge.

Now if Ogilvy hacks it around New South Wales at the Aussie Open and tweets that Dr. Mackenzie should be posthumously sued for malpractice, it's GO time!

[Sean_A]

"The difficulty of your shot should be the position the ball is in, not the lie that the ball is in." Geoff Ogilvy

there is some part of intelligence in that comment

I think this quote is only half baked.  The lie one draws is very important element at the skeletal level of architecture.  Otherwise, why do we crave land with movement or micro-undulations?  This is even true for rough, for like it or not, rough does and should have a part to play in the game.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Geoff Ogilvy's remarks about Hazeltine's setup should not be looked at as sour grapes or something like that for a bad week on his part. Ogilvy has been very consistent on the same points in the past he made about Hazeltine this week.

I'm not saying using a setup like that is categorically wrong only that it sure is very definitely another way to go. In my memory I have never seen tour pros struggle with greenside chips like they did at Hazeltine this week; matter of fact, I've never seem them come remotely close to struggling like they did that way. It wasn't about skill to recover from SOME of that greenside rough----it was pretty much just straight luck.

And combine that with some fairly firm and fast greens and it will definitely show in the 72 hole scores.

[Bill_McBride]

You can deepen your bunkers, as Oakmont did, and you can elevate the fronting berms, which I think Oakmont also did.

The problem with those modifications is their cost and their restoration cost, unless, you want your membership to interface with those same hazards.

I don't mind deeping the bunkers, and, I don't mind introducing fronting berms as long as they're removed when the tournament is over.

Patrick, I'm unfamiliar with these "fronting berms" that can be built for a specific tournament and then removed.  Can you elaborate?  Did they do this at Oakmont?  Where?  Did they remove them afterward?  I've played there a few times but last was after the Open in the early '90s, not since.

Thanks.

[Jason Walker]

George-
In the final pairing one golfer executed his shots and one didn't.  That's more or less what I'm referring to.

Pat-
Obviously you can modify existing courses to the extent you describe, but do you not run the risk of the same unfairness argument if a golfer short sides himself against a 15 foot faced bunker?  The line between penal and unfair is thin in championship golf.

[Garland Bayley]

Jason,

What is your contention? That each player plays a different course than the others during a major championship. Some players get a fair course, the unlucky ones get an unfair course?

What are you trying to do. Turn golf into bowling?

[PThomas]

Geoff Ogilvy's remarks about Hazeltine's setup should not be looked at as sour grapes or something like that for a bad week on his part. Ogilvy has been very consistent on the same points in the past he made about Hazeltine this week.

I'm not saying using a setup like that is categorically wrong only that it sure is very definitely another way to go.

a lot of sense in the above

i do think that it would hold more weight if Geoff made such observations BEFORE the tournament began

and such a setup makes it more important to hit greens in regulation, i would think..anything wrong with that once in awhile?