Ogilvy on course setup...

[Mike_Clayton]

This is John HUGGAN again.
  Mister Butler, you really seem to be a complete dope. And you certainly haven't followed anything I've written over the years  - apart from this latest piece. And, though it must already be obvious to anyone else out there with even a few brain cells, your lack of manners stems from your apparent inability to spell my surname properly. Please grow up if you are going to play with the adults.

John HUGGAN

[Patrick_Mucci]

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? 


If you want to make bunkers more of a strategic and tactical challenge, in addition to deepening them, (function of water table and sub-surface in some locations) you can effectively deepen them by creating fronting berms.

Oakmont raised their fronting berms in addition to deepening and moving their bunkers.
They did NOT alter them AFTER the big show left town.
They remain in their penal form.

I believe that form to be excessive in that the general membership cannot rise to meet the challenge they present, but, that's the culture at Oakmont.  They love and thrive on the difficulty of the golf course.  That's something I have yet to come to terms with, but, I'm working on it.

Did they do this at Oakmont?

Yes 

Where? 

Throughout the golf course

Did they remove them afterward? 


NO

I've played there a few times but last was after the Open in the early '90s, not since.

You'd be amazed at the changes to the golf course.

I think it's a great golf course, I just don't understand the membership's love of such a penal challenge that's beyond their ability.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Jason, I think the answer to your question lies within the configuration of the bunkers in the U.K., especially the sod faced bunkers.

The "rub of the green" is an accepted part of golf when playing those deep, steep faced bunkers.

What you and others may have forgotten is that bunkers are supposed to be hazards, they're supposed to extract a penalty.

If you hit a ball in the water it doesn't matter if the water is a foot deep or 10 feet deep.
If you hit a ball OB it doesn't matter if it's one foot out or 10 feet out, you suffer the same harsh penalty.

Tell me the penalty that Harrington suffered when he hit his drive in the left side fairway bunker on the par 5, and then proceeded to hit a 3-wood 305+ onto the green for an eagle putt.

If he was up against the face and had to pitch out sideways or take a more lofted club to get out while still aiming at the green, his penalty would have been one shot.  What's so terrible about that ?  Isn't that what the penalty should be ?

The same applies to greenside bunkers.

I'd be willing to wager that these fellows will up and down it more from a greenside bunker than they will from deep greenside rough.

A critical component of a bunker is its severity.

The more severe, the more strategic it becomes.
The less severe, the more meaningless it becomes.

Severe bunkers cause golfers to think, plan and avoid them when possible.
They FACTOR into the mental side of the game, the strategy and play of the hole.

A bunker of no consequence playability wise will not be a bunker of merit strategically and architecturally, 

[Richard Choi]

Pat, I could not agree with more with your statements.

It really is a travesty that bunkers are no more than decorations on a golf course these days. If hazard has not penalty, it is not a hazard!!!

Did you see how HazNat "watered" all the bunkers so that they would be firm? Why did they even have sand in them???

[David_Elvins]

Tell me the penalty that Harrington suffered when he hit his drive in the left side fairway bunker on the par 5, and then proceeded to hit a 3-wood 305+ onto the green for an eagle putt.

If he was up against the face and had to pitch out sideways or take a more lofted club to get out while still aiming at the green, his penalty would have been one shot.  What's so terrible about that ?  Isn't that what the penalty should be ?

Hi Patrick,

I am going to disagree with you on that one.  I think that the Harrington shot shows what a good hazard can do, give a player a chance to prove how good he is by pulling off an incredible shot.  And give him a possible pernalty of anything from 1-3 shots if he doesn't pull it off.  Tiger described that shot as "one of the best shots I've ever seen," and "a pretty impressive shot and it was definitely worth the price of admission."  So you can hardly say that the bunker wasn't a hazard in this instance. It was just a hazard that Padraig was able to overcome due to amazing skill and courage(and luck?).

Hasn't the bunker therefor done a great job in that:
-it has provided incredible entertainment watching Harrington trying and succeeding in pulling off a remarkable shot.  
-seperated Harrington, one of the world's best golfers, from those that wouldn't/couldn't play that shot.  
-enticed Tiger to pay the price of admission, thereby increasing revenue for the tournament.

A hazard that makes all players pitch out sideways doesn't give the best shot makers a chance to show their skill, and shot making has already been taken out of the game to a large extent by equipment.  

[Richard Choi]

A hazard that makes all players pitch out sideways doesn't give the best shot makers a chance to show their skill, and shot making has already been taken out of the game to a large extent by equipment.  

What about a hazard where EVERYBODY hits it close? Seriously, how many misses out of the bunkers did you see? It is rarer to see a bogey out of the sand then a save.

Seriously, how could you distinguish the "best shot makers" on sand shots??? The main differences between shot makers and others come from rough these days, not from sand.

[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? 


If you want to make bunkers more of a strategic and tactical challenge, in addition to deepening them, (function of water table and sub-surface in some locations) you can effectively deepen them by creating fronting berms.

Oakmont raised their fronting berms in addition to deepening and moving their bunkers.
They did NOT alter them AFTER the big show left town.
They remain in their penal form.

I believe that form to be excessive in that the general membership cannot rise to meet the challenge they present, but, that's the culture at Oakmont.  They love and thrive on the difficulty of the golf course.  That's something I have yet to come to terms with, but, I'm working on it.

Did they do this at Oakmont?

Yes 

Where? 

Throughout the golf course

Did they remove them afterward? 


NO

I've played there a few times but last was after the Open in the early '90s, not since.

You'd be amazed at the changes to the golf course.

I think it's a great golf course, I just don't understand the membership's love of such a penal challenge that's beyond their ability.

I'm still curious about which holes might have been changed with the addition of these fronting berms.  Anybody else have any clues?

I've played with members there who have told me the greens are faster for member play than top level tournament play.  While this sounds like an urban legend, it does show they are indeed very proud of how tough the course is for every day play.

My friend there also loves the popcorn and Iron City Lite in their sort of plain men's grill, refers to the popcorn as "center cut."    The locker room is also not one that would be described in the same terms visitors use for Seminole or San Francisco.  It's a very cool place with the old metal lockers.

Oakmont is by far the most difficult course I've really and truly enjoyed playing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tell me the penalty that Harrington suffered when he hit his drive in the left side fairway bunker on the par 5, and then proceeded to hit a 3-wood 305+ onto the green for an eagle putt.

If he was up against the face and had to pitch out sideways or take a more lofted club to get out while still aiming at the green, his penalty would have been one shot.  What's so terrible about that ?  Isn't that what the penalty should be ?

Hi Patrick,

I am going to disagree with you on that one.  
I think that the Harrington shot shows what a good hazard can do, give a player a chance to prove how good he is by pulling off an incredible shot.
But, that's not the FUNCTION of a hazard.

What you miss is the following.
That bunker offered no meaningful impediment to advancing the ball.
That fact that Harrington hit it on the green isn't the issue, it's that he was presented the opportunity to do so by POOR design.

When's the last time you saw someone hit that kind of shot in the British Open ?
Probably never, and you'll probably never see that.
Why ?
Because the bunkers in the U.K. tend to be more penal, not rewarding.

If a bunker offers no impediment to advancing the ball, how strategic can it be ?
What's it doing there in the first place ? .. Offering eye candy for the cameras ? 

And give him a possible pernalty of anything from 1-3 shots if he doesn't pull it off.  

That bunker, from that lie, offered NO penalty.
He could have hit a variety of shots from that bunker, leaving him an "in regulation" approach shot to that green.

Tiger described that shot as "one of the best shots I've ever seen," and "a pretty impressive shot and it was definitely worth the price of admission."  So you can hardly say that the bunker wasn't a hazard in this instance. It was just a hazard that Padraig was able to overcome due to amazing skill and courage(and luck?).

I disagree.
Everybody competing in the PGA has skill.
Luck is another matter.
It was a great shot, but there wasn't any RISK/REWARD associated with it because there was NO RISK involved in taking it.
Even if he tops his ball and it rolls 100 yards, he's got a relatively easy shot into the green.

Bunkers NEED to return to their intended function.

Hasn't the bunker therefor done a great job in that:
-it has provided incredible entertainment watching Harrington trying and succeeding in pulling off a remarkable shot.  
-seperated Harrington, one of the world's best golfers, from those that wouldn't/couldn't play that shot.  
-enticed Tiger to pay the price of admission, thereby increasing revenue for the tournament.

You've fallen victim to the "dark side"  The entertainment value of a dumbed down hazard, and equating theatre with revenue production.
Is that the purpose of a championship ?

First, because the hazard had NO function, it didn't need to be factored in to Harrington's playing decisions off the tee.
He could merely ignore the hazard and bomb away.
There was NO RISK associated with that bunker.
No risk equates to NO HAZARD

A hazard that makes all players pitch out sideways doesn't give the best shot makers a chance to show their skill,

First, you've mischaracterized the bunker.
I don't know of many fairway bunkers outside of Pine Valley that universally force the player to pitch out sideways.
So your example is flawed on count 1.

It's also flawed on count 2, in that a penal bunker would give the best shot makers the chance to show off their skill in AVOIDING a penal fairway bunker.  Remember, those guys get to place their ball on a tee, creating a perfect lie, before smashing their driver

and shot making has already been taken out of the game to a large extent by equipment.

There used to be a great old Chinese proverb, coined by Confucious the Caddy and part time Teaching Pro,
"Wood in Bunker mean Wood in Head."

Thinking one's way around the golf course becomes less meaningful when the hazards lose their function.
 

[Matt MacIver]

Tennis has four majors, three of them tested on very different surfaces.  Shouldn't golf strive for the same?  Strategic courses with wide-open fairways, rolling hills and undulating greens; courses that place a premium on driving accuracy via tree-lined old-money courses; and ocean-side courses where wind is the main defense.  

Recently The Masters has moved to bomb-and-gouge, the US Open to more open and strategy-filled (i.e. less rough, short par-4s) and the PGA is filling in the gaps.  

So I generally agree with Ogilvy's comments on a stand-alone basis, but shouldn't The Majors be viewed as a package?  

[Anthony Butler]

This is John HUGGAN again.
  Mister Butler, you really seem to be a complete dope. And you certainly haven't followed anything I've written over the years  - apart from this latest piece. And, though it must already be obvious to anyone else out there with even a few brain cells, your lack of manners stems from your apparent inability to spell my surname properly. Please grow up if you are going to play with the adults.

John HUGGAN

Dear Mr SMUGGANS,

You are correct. I can't seem to spell your name, and you're having trouble saying anything unique with the other 1 million words.
I wonder if these two things are related?

From now on, I shall not refer to you by name MR. THUGGANS. I trust you will do the same. Please pass on my best wishes to Mr Clayton. It seems you two and @GeoffOgilvy are awfully close on that Twitter thingy you keep referring to.

arb:

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'm still curious about which holes might have been changed with the addition of these fronting berms.  Anybody else have any clues?

Bill, the berms were made higher

I've played with members there who have told me the greens are faster for member play than top level tournament play.  While this sounds like an urban legend, it does show they are indeed very proud of how tough the course is for every day play.

I too have heard that.
I don't believe it, but stand ready to be corrected.

My friend there also loves the popcorn and Iron City Lite in their sort of plain men's grill, refers to the popcorn as "center cut."   
The locker room is also not one that would be described in the same terms visitors use for Seminole or San Francisco.  It's a very cool place with the old metal lockers.

It's a very special golf course and club.

Oakmont is by far the most difficult course I've really and truly enjoyed playing.

I don't know that I'd like it on a steady, daily diet.
If I was a member I'd be using the range, practice putting green and a local psychiatrist on a daily basis.(sp?)

[Anthony Butler]

Tennis has four majors, three of them tested on very different surfaces.  Shouldn't golf strive for the same?  Strategic courses with wide-open fairways, rolling hills and undulating greens; courses that place a premium on driving accuracy via tree-lined old-money courses; and ocean-side courses where wind is the main defense.  

Recently The Masters has moved to bomb-and-gouge, the US Open to more open and strategy-filled (i.e. less rough, short par-4s) and the PGA is filling in the gaps.  

So I generally agree with Ogilvy's comments on a stand-alone basis, but shouldn't The Majors be viewed as a package?  

The trouble with the tennis majors analogy is that as the game has moved to a back court power game, each major has begun to eliminate the differences that marked them as separate tournaments. Wimbledon went to a heavier ball. The Australian Open surface which used to be a little faster than the ones at Flushing Meadow are now indistinguishable. That's why the same crew... Federer, Nadalm Djokovic, Roddick etc.. are competitive in practically all of them. 10-15 years ago the guy who won the French (generally a Spanish or Latin American clay court specialist) would often not even enter Wimbledon.

I would agree that the four golf majors had a more distinctly separate identity and character 10 years ago too.

[David_Elvins]

But, that's not the FUNCTION of a hazard.

What you miss is the following.
That bunker offered no meaningful impediment to advancing the ball.
That fact that Harrington hit it on the green isn't the issue, it's that he was presented the opportunity to do so by POOR design

 Pat, Hazards can have a variety of functions.  In general, a hazard that allows agolfer to hit the green is not neccessarily poor design.  A hazard that entices a player to think he can hit the green but presents a difficulty in doing so is also excellent design.  Your scope of what a hazard is, is far too narrow.  I agree with your general point that hazards need to be more penal, but in the case of harrington, I think you are using the wrong example.

You've fallen victim to the "dark side"  The entertainment value of a dumbed down hazard, and equating theatre with revenue production.
Is that the purpose of a championship ?

Not at all.  To me the most entertaining hazards, when either playing or watching golf are those that allow you a chance to recover if you are brave or skillfull enough but with a penalty of biting off more than you can chew.  What are your most memorable shots from your career?  The chip out sideways from the bunkers or the incredible recovery shots that no-one thought you could pull off.  Whether playing or watchign golf, some of the best hazards do allow a chance of recovery.  

Thinking one's way around the golf course becomes less meaningful when the hazards lose their function.

I agree, and you make a good point about penal hazards enhancing strategy, but I think you are going to far  in suggesting that a hazard that affords a chance of recovery is not worthwhile.  They can be strategic, interesting, and used to delineate the best from the rest.

[Patrick_Mucci]

But, that's not the FUNCTION of a hazard.

What you miss is the following.
That bunker offered no meaningful impediment to advancing the ball.
That fact that Harrington hit it on the green isn't the issue, it's that he was presented the opportunity to do so by POOR design

Pat, Hazards can have a variety of functions.

Could you name those functions ?

In general, a hazard that allows a golfer to hit the green is not neccessarily poor design.  

It's certainly not a very strategic bunker, and thus one has to question the quality of its design.

A hazard that entices a player to think he can hit the green but presents a difficulty in doing so is also excellent design.  

What difficulty did Harrington's bunker present ?   NONE

Your scope of what a hazard is, is far too narrow.  

I don't believe so.
You're also falling victim to a one dimensional perspective, that of the PGA Tour Pro.
Bunkers are static, it's the general membership that must interact with them.
When I see golfers, mid to high handicappers, hitting utility woods out of bunkers,  I know that they've lost their function and that my sense of what a hazard IS SUPPOSED TO BE is on the money.

I agree with your general point that hazards need to be more penal, but in the case of harrington, I think you are using the wrong example.


What impediment or advancement difficulty did Harrington's bunker present to him ?   NONE
There was no downside, no penalty for failure to execute.
The bunker had NO inherent design merits
It was a faux bunker, absent function other than visual.[/b][/size]

You've fallen victim to the "dark side"  The entertainment value of a dumbed down hazard, and equating theatre with revenue production.
Is that the purpose of a championship ?

Not at all.  To me the most entertaining hazards, when either playing or watching golf are those that allow you a chance to recover if you are brave or skillfull enough but with a penalty of biting off more than you can chew.  

You're completely ignoring that bunker's diminished strategic value off the tee.
Extracating oneself from a bunker is a matter of analysis and execution.

If I knew that no matter where I was in that bunker, I couldn't hit the green, I'd take great pains to avoid that bunker.
Whereas, if I knew that it offered little in the way of challenge, I'd mostly ignore that bunker.
What function is there if there's no meaningful penalty for landing in the bunker ?

What are your most memorable shots from your career?  The chip out sideways from the bunkers or the incredible recovery shots that no-one thought you could pull off.  

Neither, it was planning and hitting a perfect drive that avoided that bunker.
You're confusing random luck and heroics with strategic features that penalize the golfer for failure to think and/or execute.

Whether playing or watchign golf, some of the best hazards do allow a chance of recovery.  

Then, that fairway bunker isn't strategic enough.
You're limiting the term "recovery" by solely equating hitting from the bunker onto the green as a recovery.
For me, a recovery is a successful extraction from the bunker, irrespective of whether or not the ball ends up on the green..

Thinking one's way around the golf course becomes less meaningful when the hazards lose their function.

I agree, and you make a good point about penal hazards enhancing strategy, but I think you are going to far  in suggesting that a hazard that affords a chance of recovery is not worthwhile.  They can be strategic, interesting, and used to delineate the best from the rest.

"Recovery" when I use the term is a relative term.
You're using it in the absolute.
Almost every bunker is recoverable from.
It's the degree of recovery that's at issue.
The more difficult the degree of recovery, the MORE STRATEGIC the bunker.
Harrington's bunker had NO STRATEGIC value to the field.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick - again I ask, what berms where?  Is this first hand knowledge?  Did a member tell you about it?  Did you see it before and after?

What berms, what holes?

I'm still curious about which holes might have been changed with the addition of these fronting berms.  Anybody else have any clues?

Bill, the berms were made higher

[Mike_Clayton]

Mike,

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

Jim,

I am not sure what influence he can have beyond being one of very few top level players who is prepared to say anything about design and course set-up. Nor am I sure how you get into a position of influence in America.
My company is the design consultant to Golf Australia - they set up all the courses for our equivalent of USGA events  -  and I speak to Geoff often about how he sees the courses being organized for tournaments.
More importantly we play a little when he is back in Melbourne and that is a reminder of how far these guys hit the ball.It is one thing to watch them bomb a long drive - and altogether another to it a decent drive and have someone fly it fifty yards further.
So he does have an indirect influence in Australia.
I suppose it comes down to whether someone with the power thinks there is anything in what he is saying.

[Rich Goodale]

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.

Behr

"…when one attempts a great carry, or to direct one’s ball adjacent to danger to reap an advantage, one cannot anticipate what the result of one’s efforts to be. There is suspense during the period one is making up one’s mind just how much to go out for. There is suspense during the flight of the ball; and suspense ends only when it comes to rest… And if one is playing upon links land, the nature of the [ball's] lie is also a mystery. And then again a decision must be made."

Mackenzie

"11.  The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play."

 Both Behr and Mackenzie seem to relish unfairness and the effect of it on the better golfer.  Crane and Ogilvy, on the other hand ask that anything unfair (whether it be 6 inch greenside rough or water hazards) be cryit doon.

[Sean_A]

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.

Behr

"…when one attempts a great carry, or to direct one’s ball adjacent to danger to reap an advantage, one cannot anticipate what the result of one’s efforts to be. There is suspense during the period one is making up one’s mind just how much to go out for. There is suspense during the flight of the ball; and suspense ends only when it comes to rest… And if one is playing upon links land, the nature of the [ball's] lie is also a mystery. And then again a decision must be made."

Mackenzie

"11.  The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play."

 Both Behr and Mackenzie seem to relish unfairness and the effect of it on the better golfer.  Crane and Ogilvy, on the other hand ask that anything unfair (whether it be 6 inch greenside rough or water hazards) be cryit doon.

Rihc

I don't believe anybody mentioned unfair.  I think it is more about capturing the interest of the player with options for play.  That isn't to say that rough doesn't have its place, but if it is the main defence of greens, Lucy has some splainin' to do.  I certainly can't see where the viewer gets much enjoyment from watching a load of hacking out of rough - especially from the fairway. 

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

As you know I am not a fan of heavy rough and never have been.  All I'm trying to do in this thread is expose the irony of certain purists seeming to enjoy and even advocate randomness and unfairness in golf, except when it affects them directly.  As much as  I hate heavy rough, particularly around the green, I am man enough to recognise that playing out of it is a distinct and very high-level skill (which I do not have).  I would suggest to Ogilvy (and others) who have the same problem (relatively, at least) to follow the Gary Player/Isacc Stern dictum of "PRACTICE!"

Rich

[Sean_A]

Sean

As you know I am not a fan of heavy rough and never have been.  All I'm trying to do in this thread is expose the irony of certain purists seeming to enjoy and even advocate randomness and unfairness in golf, except when it affects them directly.  As much as  I hate heavy rough, particularly around the green, I am man enough to recognise that playing out of it is a distinct and very high-level skill (which I do not have).  I would suggest to Ogilvy (and others) who have the same problem (relatively, at least) to follow the Gary Player/Isacc Stern dictum of "PRACTICE!"

Rich

Rihc

I am not sure ANYBODY has the skill to be consistently effective playing from long, lush rough.  While I admit there is an element of randomness about harsh rough that hasn't been properly recognized on this thread, this style of rough is nowhere near as unpredictable as rough can be.  There is a place for all types of rough, the trick is to get the correct balance which enhances a design and thus interest of the game.  I would suggest that Hazeltine fell far short of getting that balance right.  That said, as Mucci suggests on another thread, in the case of Hazeltine, perhaps harsh rough is the only way to get the attention of the best.  In which case I would have to ask if Hazeltine is a good choice of venue for a major.

Ciao

[JESII]

Mike,

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

Jim,

I am not sure what influence he can have beyond being one of very few top level players who is prepared to say anything about design and course set-up. Nor am I sure how you get into a position of influence in America.
My company is the design consultant to Golf Australia - they set up all the courses for our equivalent of USGA events  -  and I speak to Geoff often about how he sees the courses being organized for tournaments.
More importantly we play a little when he is back in Melbourne and that is a reminder of how far these guys hit the ball.It is one thing to watch them bomb a long drive - and altogether another to it a decent drive and have someone fly it fifty yards further.
So he does have an indirect influence in Australia.
I suppose it comes down to whether someone with the power thinks there is anything in what he is saying.

Mike,

Thanks for that, I can appreciate the distance problem with today's top players and how it impacts course setup. It must be a tremendous challenge.

I would think the organizing bodies in the US and GB would be interested in hearing Geoff's opinion on course setup the same way you are interested in hearing his opinion as an affiliate of Golf Australia...it's just that I would think they would prefer to hear it somewhere other than on his blog or in the media.

[Bill_McBride]

Patrick - again I ask, what berms where?  Is this first hand knowledge?  Did a member tell you about it?  Did you see it before and after?

What berms, what holes?

I'm still curious about which holes might have been changed with the addition of these fronting berms.  Anybody else have any clues?

Bill, the berms were made higher

Patrick, I asked you five questions in the post above and you didn't answer any of them.  If you don't want to, that's fine.  I'm just very curious about this business of "raising berms."  I'm driving for eight hours to play in North Carolina mountains in a few minutes, maybe you can respond at your convenience.   Or not. 

[Rich Goodale]

Sean

As you know I am not a fan of heavy rough and never have been.  All I'm trying to do in this thread is expose the irony of certain purists seeming to enjoy and even advocate randomness and unfairness in golf, except when it affects them directly.  As much as  I hate heavy rough, particularly around the green, I am man enough to recognise that playing out of it is a distinct and very high-level skill (which I do not have).  I would suggest to Ogilvy (and others) who have the same problem (relatively, at least) to follow the Gary Player/Isacc Stern dictum of "PRACTICE!"

Rich

Rihc

I am not sure ANYBODY has the skill to be consistently effective playing from long, lush rough.  While I admit there is an element of randomness about harsh rough that hasn't been properly recognized on this thread, this style of rough is nowhere near as unpredictable as rough can be.  There is a place for all types of rough, the trick is to get the correct balance which enhances a design and thus interest of the game.  I would suggest that Hazeltine fell far short of getting that balance right.  That said, as Mucci suggests on another thread, in the case of Hazeltine, perhaps harsh rough is the only way to get the attention of the best.  In which case I would have to ask if Hazeltine is a good choice of venue for a major.

Ciao

Sean

All I'm positing is that the top pros (e.g. Ogilvy) will play better from deep rough than you or I, not that they are "consistently effective."  I would further posit that they are relatively better than we playing such shots than they are on "easier" ones, e.g. green side bunker shots, pitch and runs, etc.  I've played from greenside USGA rough (~2 days after Pebble Beach 1982) and getting it out the first time was problem #1 for me.  To them, hitting it 10 feet short or long is a disaster.  I'd kill to be able to regularly managed such "disasters" from such lies.

The obvious point, relevant to my initial post, is why are they in the rough in the first place?  In the case of Tiger, as others have said above, he needed to gamble to have a chance of overcoming Yang, and he nearly pulled it off on the 17 and 18.  Why is a less talented player like Ogilvy, under less pressure, getting into such positions when he knows that misexecution is going to put him in a place where he does not want to be?  Perhaps his strategic thinking went awry?

Rich

[Sean_A]

Sean

As you know I am not a fan of heavy rough and never have been.  All I'm trying to do in this thread is expose the irony of certain purists seeming to enjoy and even advocate randomness and unfairness in golf, except when it affects them directly.  As much as  I hate heavy rough, particularly around the green, I am man enough to recognise that playing out of it is a distinct and very high-level skill (which I do not have).  I would suggest to Ogilvy (and others) who have the same problem (relatively, at least) to follow the Gary Player/Isacc Stern dictum of "PRACTICE!"

Rich

Rihc

I am not sure ANYBODY has the skill to be consistently effective playing from long, lush rough.  While I admit there is an element of randomness about harsh rough that hasn't been properly recognized on this thread, this style of rough is nowhere near as unpredictable as rough can be.  There is a place for all types of rough, the trick is to get the correct balance which enhances a design and thus interest of the game.  I would suggest that Hazeltine fell far short of getting that balance right.  That said, as Mucci suggests on another thread, in the case of Hazeltine, perhaps harsh rough is the only way to get the attention of the best.  In which case I would have to ask if Hazeltine is a good choice of venue for a major.

Ciao

Sean

All I'm positing is that the top pros (e.g. Ogilvy) will play better from deep rough than you or I, not that they are "consistently effective."  I would further posit that they are relatively better than we playing such shots than they are on "easier" ones, e.g. green side bunker shots, pitch and runs, etc.  I've played from greenside USGA rough (~2 days after Pebble Beach 1982) and getting it out the first time was problem #1 for me.  To them, hitting it 10 feet short or long is a disaster.  I'd kill to be able to regularly managed such "disasters" from such lies.

The obvious point, relevant to my initial post, is why are they in the rough in the first place?  In the case of Tiger, as others have said above, he needed to gamble to have a chance of overcoming Yang, and he nearly pulled it off on the 17 and 18.  Why is an inferior player like Ogilvy, under less pressure, getting into such positions when he knows that misexecution is going to put him in a place where he does not want to be?  Perhaps his strategic thinking went awry?

Rich

Rihc

Without a doubt the pros at better at every aspect of shotmaking than others such as myself.  

As for Ogilvy, these guys are good, but they ain't machines.  Mistakes, both mental and physical can and will be made.  For my part, I love the mental mistakes the pros make because it can lead to drama like the Frog gave us at Carnasty.

I don't think you and I disagree except perhaps in degrees.  All I can say is that I want to watch exciting golf and it is my opinion that long rough doesn't often offer the viewer excitement.  

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Ciao

Agreed

Ciao