Why were the greens so soft?

[JESII]

Was there more rain than I heard about Thursday evening?

Is it too cool to dry them out at all?

Did they just want a ton of birdies?

Did anyone see a single shot bounce on the green more than a few inches off the ground?

What am I missing?

[Brent Hutto]

There wasn't enough rain on Thursday to have any effect on Sunday. Surely they had full control over the maintenance of the greens so I must conclude that slightly soft plus very fast was the desired conditions.

[Adam Clayman]

Sully, I asked the same question during yesterdays telecast. One answer was about the humidity levels. But, I suspect that's hogwash, too.
The reason the greens were receptive and a tad slower (IMO) than in years past was all about creating an exciting tournament.

I'm on record as predicting the Aces on 16. Why did, or How did I know that? Well, It seemed rather obvious that the goal of the committee was to get the roars back. From the love fest coming from the media this morning, I'd say the committee hit a home run. What's fascinating to me is how nobody realizes (questions) how they have been manipulated into feeling this way. (save for you of course) Maybe it's enough to feel all warm and fuzzy, but to me, I'd feel better if it wasn't the hand of man that had so much to do with it.

[Brent Hutto]

Adam,

I say this with nothing but love and respect for you as a long-time fellow GCA'er but man, you could find a way to rain on any parade or screw up a wet dream. Would you really rather see the course hardened up until the winner was some guy who gutted it out and shot +2 on Sunday? Is there any course other than The Old Course c. 1950 that you would consider sufficiently un-tricked-up for hosting a major? Seriously.

P.S. For the Sunday round, a field of elite players under absolutely ideal, benign conditions as perfect for scoring as one could possibly ask averaged exactly 72 strokes. Even par.

[TEPaul]

Sully:

Apparently with the incredibly sophisticated sub-air systems under those greens they can produce just about any firmness they want overnight. If they wanted those greens a lot firmer it is my understanding they could've gotten it with those sub-air systems.

I saw a demonstration done about a year ago. They flooded one of those greens, then turned on the sub-air system and in a matter of minutes it sucked all the water right out of it.

[Adam Clayman]

Brent, Seriously, you read too much into my comments.

I'm a skeptic at heart and would much rather know the origins of the wind blowing up my sphincter.

It's just an opinion on a speculation.

[Terry Lavin]

Sully, I asked the same question during yesterdays telecast. One answer was about the humidity levels. But, I suspect that's hogwash, too.
The reason the greens were receptive and a tad slower (IMO) than in years past was all about creating an exciting tournament.

I'm on record as predicting the Aces on 16. Why did, or How did I know that? Well, It seemed rather obvious that the goal of the committee was to get the roars back. From the love fest coming from the media this morning, I'd say the committee hit a home run. What's fascinating to me is how nobody realizes (questions) how they have been manipulated into feeling this way. (save for you of course) Maybe it's enough to feel all warm and fuzzy, but to me, I'd feel better if it wasn't the hand of man that had so much to do with it.

The USGA did the same thing in the third round of the US Open at Olympia Fields when I was greens chairman.  We were doing hole locations and got to the third hole, a 175 yard par three.  They had asked us to expand the green to include an upper right shelf that would be hard to get to and hard to make a putt on to make the hole tougher for the pros.  Then, when they showed up, they decided it would be too hard and instead looked for different spots on the green.  Remarkably enough, Tom Meeks chose a spot near the bottom right of the hole, where the green had a funnel or punchbowl effect.  His quote, "I think you'll see some holes-in-one here today," absolutely floored me, because as a member of the host club, I wanted the course to play hard, not be conducive to low scoring.  But he knew how to set up courses for a major and I didn't.  I think the same is true for the Sunday hole location at 16 at the Masters.  One of these years, the challenger is going to get a hole in one there to win the green jacket.  It would be interesting to hear the reaction for that kind of win...

[Brent Hutto]

Well perhaps we're in agreement that they were able (absent serious weather-related constraints) to dial in exactly the committee's currently desired scoring paradigm for this year's tournament. I sort of take that for granted.

It's kind of like speculation about whether Phil Mickelson is really an open, honest and friendly guy or whether he has just successfully acted like one for every day of his amateur and professional career. I worry less about whether it's nature or artifice and concentrate on the fact that his chosen image makes for great entertainment. I feel the same way about the slightly soft but very fast state of the greens this past weekend!

[JESII]

Truth be told, with the hole locations in the bottom of alot of feeding areas, firmer greens would likely result in more approach shots (well thought out and executed...) bounding and rolling (for a longer period of time...) close to the hole...

My questions/complaints were less about it being too easy (-16 winning score) than about the fun of seeing balls use all those humps and bumps and rolls for a longer period of time...

...plus all the comments on here about it being firm and fast...fast greens yes, but nothing seemed firm, fairways or greens.

[Brent Hutto]

Jim S,

I agree concerning the fairways. There were some wonderful HDTV closeups of balls landing and rolling on Sunday and time after time they would be caught short maybe 5-8 yards before I would have expected. Even on the tenth-hole speed ramp the balls seemed to come to a rest before running out of downslope. And the area behind the 13th green did not propel balls nearly as far after overshooting the green as past years would lead me to expect.

Honorable mention to Els' ball hanging Freddie-style after he bladed it from behind the green.

[Pete_Pittock]

This was the first year with a new groove to consider. If you were in charge, on which side would you error?

[JESII]

Pete,

Not sure...I didn't have to make the choice...but I'll ask you...do you think they kept the course softer intentionally because of the groove rule?

[Steve Strasheim]

I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw them watering down the greens Sunday Morning on purpose. There was a live shot of what looked like a guy holding the hose and doing the syringe thing.

As a tournament setup neophyte, I wondered why they would do that on an already good scoring day.

[BCrosby]

Jim -

Having spent a couple of days there, not only were the greens slower than usual, they were also slightly softer. The fw's were not cut as tightly as I remember in previous years. It also seemed to me that the rough was a little lower. They seem to have taken out some (but not very many) trees on 7 and 17.

Bob

[Tim_Cronin]

Sully, I asked the same question during yesterdays telecast. One answer was about the humidity levels. But, I suspect that's hogwash, too.
The reason the greens were receptive and a tad slower (IMO) than in years past was all about creating an exciting tournament.

I'm on record as predicting the Aces on 16. Why did, or How did I know that? Well, It seemed rather obvious that the goal of the committee was to get the roars back. From the love fest coming from the media this morning, I'd say the committee hit a home run. What's fascinating to me is how nobody realizes (questions) how they have been manipulated into feeling this way. (save for you of course) Maybe it's enough to feel all warm and fuzzy, but to me, I'd feel better if it wasn't the hand of man that had so much to do with it.

The USGA did the same thing in the third round of the US Open at Olympia Fields when I was greens chairman.  We were doing hole locations and got to the third hole, a 175 yard par three.  They had asked us to expand the green to include an upper right shelf that would be hard to get to and hard to make a putt on to make the hole tougher for the pros.  Then, when they showed up, they decided it would be too hard and instead looked for different spots on the green.  Remarkably enough, Tom Meeks chose a spot near the bottom right of the hole, where the green had a funnel or punchbowl effect.  His quote, "I think you'll see some holes-in-one here today," absolutely floored me, because as a member of the host club, I wanted the course to play hard, not be conducive to low scoring.  But he knew how to set up courses for a major and I didn't.  I think the same is true for the Sunday hole location at 16 at the Masters.  One of these years, the challenger is going to get a hole in one there to win the green jacket.  It would be interesting to hear the reaction for that kind of win...

Terry, that's very interesting, especially since Meeks was still P.J. Boatwright's assistant at Oak Hill the year Nick Price and three other guys made aces on the same hole within 90 minutes. I remember quizzing Tom about the course set-up on the Sunday morning of the '03 Open (after the rough he ordered cut was finally growing back), and he said he had a couple of pin placements that were 3 paces in reality, but he put 4 on the sheet, because he didn't want to get barked it.

One of them was the fifth (for the Open), way over on the left side, close to the runoff. So what happens? Jim Furyk birdies it. Think he hit it to 4 feet or something. You just can't hide a pin from these guys.