Ogilvy on course setup...

[Garland Bayley]

...

Apart from the 1,500 here on GCA.com, the opinion of the 43rd placed competitor at the PGA is of little interest to anyone else who watched the tournament.

Well, it would also be of interest to the sportswriters who keep asking him about setup. Some of them also agree with him, and would like to see things done a little differently. And, since they keep writing about it, they must perceive there are more than we 1500 that are interested.

[Scott Warren]

What if he'd criticized the setup at WFW in 2006, Anthony, would the value of his opinion be greater than it is this week simple because he hit the ball fewer times?

If he knows enough about the topic, it shouldn't matter if he finishes 1st or misses the cut.

[Anthony Butler]

What if he'd criticized the setup at WFW in 2006, Anthony, would the value of his opinion be greater than it is this week simple because he hit the ball fewer times?

If he knows enough about the topic, it shouldn't matter if he finishes 1st or misses the cut.

Why do people keep asking Bronson Arroyo about steroids? Because he's talk radio gold!

In the same light, golf writers ask Ogilvy questions about the set-up because a) he's going to have an opinion. b) it will most likely be controversial given his past statements.

That means sites like this will post links to resulting articles and the hits go up. His relative 'expertise' on the subject is co-incidental to that process.

In the sports journalism industry, Australians are known as 'forthright' in their opinions.  (Exhibit A: Norman, G. Exhibit B: Elkington, S, Exhibit C: Hewitt, L....)

If they were American, they would be referred to as 'loose cannons'.

[Garland Bayley]

...

If they were American, they would be referred to as 'loose cannons'.

That's nonsense, and ignorant of the meaning of loose cannon. John Daly is a loose cannon. Geoff Shackelford, an American that you will find saying the same things as Geoff Oglivy, is not!

[JLahrman]

http://www.golfdigest.com/golfworld/columnists/2009/08/golf_huggan_pga_championship_0817

Looks like John Huggan at Golf Digest agrees with Geoff...

As for if Ogilvy is whining, I certainly don't think he is but maybe you have to win the tournament to not be regarded as whining.  Can't wait until he wins the next PGA and this is how he starts his acceptance speech.

[Rick Shefchik]

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.

I have to agree. Thursday evening I watched Tom Lehman hit something like 30 chips from just off the practice green, but they weren't really chips -- they were more like gouges. There was no discernible shot pattern -- a few were good, most were well short or well long. It was clear Lehman -- a tour veteran who's seen it all and played Hazeltine perhaps a hundred times -- had no idea how to hit consistently close shots from that stuff, and his practice session was probably just a waste of time.

On Sunday Tiger's attempt to catch Yang was thwarted by hitting it just into the rough behind the 17th hole, and just into the left rough on 18. Yes, both shots were slightly misjudged, but he really had no chance to recover from shots that barely missed his target. Is that what we want to see? I tend to agree with Ogilvy: Tame the greenside rough. It's a bigger factor than it should be, and introduces too much luck into the game.

[Rich Goodale]

Isn't Ogilvy just parroting Joshua Crane and his concept of proportionality?  Not that there is anything bad about that, even though it means that Geoff is indirectly dissing Mackenzie and Behr....

[Anthony Butler]

...

If they were American, they would be referred to as 'loose cannons'.

That's nonsense, and ignorant of the meaning of loose cannon. John Daly is a loose cannon. Geoff Shackelford, an American that you will find saying the same things as Geoff Oglivy, is not!

Thank you, Mr. Garland. I am aware of the dictionary and Wikipedia definition of 'loose cannon'. In practical application, it's about as accurate as the original definition of gay, so I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on that point.

Geoff Shackelford is a journalist. His job is to issue opinions that attract attention. In most circumstances, that makes it impossible for him to be considered a 'loose cannon'. Unless John Huggins had a rich contract from either Hazeltine National or the PGA to chronicle their history when he published the article about Ogilvy, he's not one either.

Huggins argument about the rough off the green negating Tiger's short game 'genius' stinks to high heaven. At the very end of the 4th round, Tiger started to get a little desperate and the closer he got to the hole, the more it showed. This is the first time it's happened to him, which could explain why everyone had such a hard time categorizing it.

By perpetuating the story that the course set up cost Tiger a major, Huggins appears to be simply sucking up to Ogilvy and Woods, thereby guaranteeing access to them for future stories. The PGA set-up maybe at odds to the architects' original intent, but don't think Robert Trent Jones or even Rees Jones at the time had any way of foreseeing how much technology would enhance the pros' skill in competition. That in large part explains why the competitive field was set up the way it was at Hazeltine. Someone with access to the PGA members responsible for the set-up at Hazeltine would be able to verify this, but setting up the course according to Geoff Ogilvy's dictates was not going to produce a course of sufficient challenge for the competitors involved.

Given the winning score on a 7,600+ yd course was still -8, I tend to agree with them.

The whole 'the balls too long' grumpy old man stuff in the Huggins article is beyond boring. That genie is not going back in the bottle anytime soon. Besides, the rules changes on grooves are much more likely to bring some of the short game options canvassed on this thread into play once again.

[Scott Warren]

Anthony,

In Australian usage at least, what Ogilvy said here and has said previously about course setup does not even border on being a "loose cannon". These are very measured and considered opinions, not something he ranted and raved about.

Lleyton can be a loose cannon, I reckon Greg isn't so much a loose cannon as incapable of accepting that anything bad that has happened to him was even remotely his fault...

Ogilvy is outspoken, sure, but that doesn't automatically make him a loose cannon.

[Anthony Butler]

Anthony,

In Australian usage at least, what Ogilvy said here and has said previously about course setup does not even border on being a "loose cannon". These are very measured and considered opinions, not something he ranted and raved about.

Lleyton can be a loose cannon, I reckon Greg isn't so much a loose cannon as incapable of accepting that anything bad that has happened to him was even remotely his fault...

Ogilvy is outspoken, sure, but that doesn't automatically make him a loose cannon.

Not sure where he got it from, but my father once said to me "A principle is just an opinion until it costs you something."

Lleyton Hewitt is more of an immature jerk. Although, as most people do, he has probably matured slightly with marriage/kids etc...

[Garland Bayley]

Isn't Ogilvy just parroting Joshua Crane and his concept of proportionality?  Not that there is anything bad about that, even though it means that Geoff is indirectly dissing Mackenzie and Behr....

Rich,

It seems to me Oglivy is advocating MacKenziean style, not Crane.

[Garland Bayley]

Anthony,

Please read PFs description of the 18th at Stone Eagle as the hardest finishing hole he has played in golf. How could that be possible without growing hay around the green? Sounds to me that your arguments are more about Hazeltine being an inappropriate choice for a major than about proper setup for a major.

Also, we will have to label you a loose cannon based on your definition. 

[TEPaul]

"On Sunday Tiger's attempt to catch Yang was thwarted by hitting it just into the rough behind the 17th hole, and just into the left rough on 18. Yes, both shots were slightly misjudged, but he really had no chance to recover from shots that barely missed his target."


Rick:

I wouldn't even call a ton of those greenside chips out of those remarkably thick rough surrounds a matter of misjudgment on the part of Tiger and the rest of the Hazeltine PGA field. I think when even players that good get into stuff like that with a short chip recovery it becomes virtually impossible for them to "Judge" what to do properly. Since they can't really even see what's really going on down under there by trying to look they pretty much just need to guess and then hit and hope they guessed right. More than half the time they didn't guess right at all and it showed in spades with all of them.

[Rich Goodale]

Isn't Ogilvy just parroting Joshua Crane and his concept of proportionality?  Not that there is anything bad about that, even though it means that Geoff is indirectly dissing Mackenzie and Behr....

Rich,

It seems to me Oglivy is advocating MacKenziean style, not Crane.

You mis-seem, Garland.  Please read (or re-read) Bob Crosby's excellent IMO piece and report back.

Rich

[Garland Bayley]

Isn't Ogilvy just parroting Joshua Crane and his concept of proportionality?  Not that there is anything bad about that, even though it means that Geoff is indirectly dissing Mackenzie and Behr....

Rich,

It seems to me Oglivy is advocating MacKenziean style, not Crane.

You mis-seem, Garland.  Please read (or re-read) Bob Crosby's excellent IMO piece and report back.

Rich

Rich,

Joshua Crane emphasized uniformity. I have read him in the original. I don't need to read more of Bob Crosby's work.

Geoff emphasized variability. Variability in lie, variability in blindness, variability in greenside setup, etc.

I would direct you to read some Joshua Crane yourself.

[Rick Shefchik]

"On Sunday Tiger's attempt to catch Yang was thwarted by hitting it just into the rough behind the 17th hole, and just into the left rough on 18. Yes, both shots were slightly misjudged, but he really had no chance to recover from shots that barely missed his target."


Rick:

I wouldn't even call a ton of those greenside chips out of those remarkably thick rough surrounds a matter of misjudgment on the part of Tiger and the rest of the Hazeltine PGA field. I think when even players that good get into stuff like that with a short chip recovery it becomes virtually impossible for them to "Judge" what to do properly. Since they can't really even see what's really going on down under there by trying to look they pretty much just need to guess and then hit and hope they guessed right. More than half the time they didn't guess right at all and it showed in spades with all of them.

Tom,

I should have made myself more clear in my above statement. I meant that the approach shots were misjudged, not the chips. I was trying to say that a certain amount of difficulty is deserved when you miss a green as Tiger did on 17 and 18, but he didn't miss by much (Yang narrowly avoided a far worse -- and more deserved -- fate with his edge-of-the-hazard approach to 16, which was much riskier than either of Tiger's approach shots on 17 and 18.) I just thought the severity of punishment for missing a green by a couple of feet was out of proportion for the transgression -- as I believe you do, too.

[Rich Goodale]

Isn't Ogilvy just parroting Joshua Crane and his concept of proportionality?  Not that there is anything bad about that, even though it means that Geoff is indirectly dissing Mackenzie and Behr....

Rich,

It seems to me Oglivy is advocating MacKenziean style, not Crane.

You mis-seem, Garland.  Please read (or re-read) Bob Crosby's excellent IMO piece and report back.

Rich

Rich,

Joshua Crane emphasized uniformity. I have read him in the original. I don't need to read more of Bob Crosby's work.

Geoff emphasized variability. Variability in lie, variability in blindness, variability in greenside setup, etc.

I would direct you to read some Joshua Crane yourself.

Thanks, Garland, but I have already read a lot of Crane in the original and I will take my interpretation over yours.  All Geoff emphasized in that brief interview/article was the unfairness of deep greenside rough, which Crane would heartily agree with, given his theory of graduated penalties.  I doubt if Behr or Mackenzie would agree with Geoff's implication that golf should be "fair."  You are, of course, entitled to disagree.

Rich

[Mike_Clayton]

John HUGGAN, that's HUGGAN, here,
I have no idea who Anthony Butler is, but when someone clearly lacks even the most basic of manners it is hard to take seriously anything he says. Please note that I managed to spell his name correctly. All those years of writing in English are clearly paying off for me.

John HUGGAN

PS. That's HUGGAN for those of you following along at home.

[Garland Bayley]

Rich,

Which part of
"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."
sounds like Joshua Crane, but not like Dr. Mac?
Or maybe you think Royal Melbourne and Augusta were done by Joshua Crane and his buddy AWT.

[Mike_Clayton]

One thing I would say about Geoff is that he has been very consistent with his arguments over the years whether he played welll or poorly. He grew up on great courses in Melbourne where the shots around the greens can be very difficult but that are always played off good lies - as opposed to simple shots made difficult by having to play them out of long grass. Tiger's final chip was a perfect example of that.

If he has something interesting to say what difference does it make if he finishes 43rd or 1st? He played pretty well at Winged Foot but it was hardly the way the course would be organized if it was up to him.

[Peter Pallotta]

Not to sidetrack this, but I think there's an interesting difference between the shot that Tiger hit/the result he got at the 17th at the PGA and the shot Tom Watson hit/the result he got on the 18th at the Open. I think Watson had a bigger margin for error, but only if he'd chosen to flirt with that front bunker.

Peter 

[JESII]

If he has something interesting to say what difference does it make if he finishes 43rd or 1st? He played pretty well at Winged Foot but it was hardly the way the course would be organized if it was up to him.

Mike,

Does Geoff have any interest in getting in a position to helping make course setup decisions?

[JMEvensky]

Not to sidetrack this, but I think there's an interesting difference between the shot that Tiger hit/the result he got at the 17th at the PGA and the shot Tom Watson hit/the result he got on the 18th at the Open. I think Watson had a bigger margin for error, but only if he'd chosen to flirt with that front bunker.

Peter 

The big difference is that Tiger had go flag hunting,he was 1 down.Long was always going to be a possibility and,presumably,that was factored into Tiger's equation.Watson,OTOH,was 1 up and his going long was some act of an evil god-a 9 iron that went farther than he imagined it ever would.

Peter,if you haven't seen,today's WSJ has a nice article on Prez.Figured you might be interested.

[Peter Pallotta]

JM - thank you for the heads up. I just read it, and enjoyed it very much. And I think the writer captures something perfectly - the state of "melancholic euphoria" in Pres' sound and phrases. Ahh....talent. It ends all discussion.

Thanks again
Peter

[Anthony Butler]

John HUGGAN, that's HUGGAN, here,
I have no idea who Anthony Butler is, but when someone clearly lacks even the most basic of manners it is hard to take seriously anything he says. Please note that I managed to spell his name correctly. All those years of writing in English are clearly paying off for me.

John HUGGAN

PS. That's HUGGAN for those of you following along at home.

Mr Clayton,

I'm not sure why my comments constitute 'lack of manners'...  If it's about your good friend HUGGANS' article, I was under the impression journalists from reputable publications had ceased acting as stenographers for other people's opinions when Judith Miller got canned by the New York Times.

Mr HUGGANS simply cobbled together the opinions of everyone who gets 'grumpy' when they feel grass touch their pant legs on a golf course without any discussion on other viable options for major course set-ups given the current situation with wedge grooves etc... He didn't even mention this situation might resolve itself with the change in rules next year.

Besides, if I want Geoff Ogilvy's unvarnished opinion about golf course set-ups, I can get them directly from his Twitter site along with his musings on complicated coffee orders.

The rest of the article is just the same tired ramblings around the issue of the golf ball going too far for the professionals... anyone with two brain cells should know that a separate professional ball will only happen over the dead bodies of every golf equipment CEO you can name. Having some knowledge of Titleist's business model, manufacturing Pro V1s is as close to printing money as you can get in this economy. I would assume Mr. Ogilvy is aware of this since Titleist pays him very handsomely for using the ball... which basically supports every other product line at Acushnet/Titleist.

Also, the comment about JB Holmes and Quiros. 'Mindless hitting machines'??. Stay classy Mr. HUGGANS.

arb: