[Bill_McBride]

I've spoken to Mike Davis a couple of times about Open set-ups and how good I think they've been with some of his new philosophies; last time he mentioned he felt it was a lot easier to get what they were looking for with Open set-ups in California but for the life of me I can't remember what he said the reason was behind that.

Maybe it's because he enjoys a few trips to Monterey or San Diego to "work on the set up!"   

I know I would!

[Richard Choi]

Tom, I completely agree with you. The "US Open Rough" is nothing more than a crutch to compensate for lack of real existing architectural features. You could have hosted US Open on any course with reasonable length using that philosophy. It diminished bunkers (it was viewed as safe haven compared to the rough) and destroyed preferred angles.

Why bother having this tournament on great courses like Pebble and Shinnecock if the setup completely negates the natural features of the course?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Could it be that it's easier to get F&F conditions in southern CA in mid-June than in Boston or Westchester County...or Philly?"


Mike:

Sure it could be. It's easier to get pretty much anything you're looking for in California in mid-June compared to Boston or Westchester County...or Philly, like drugs, screwballs, nut-jobs, consistently firm and fast girls, golf courses, you name it.

[Tim Martin]

I'd rather see Phil Mickelson playing out of a fairway bunker because he was a afraid of a cliff than see him gouging yet another ball out of ankle-deep rough because he wasn't afraid of anything.

     Am I missing something?  Why wouldn't he be afraid of hitting into ankle-deep rough?  All they're doing is changing the penalty for a poor shot from a nasty shot from rough to a one stoke penalty, unless the player is lucky enough to have the ball stop before it goes over the ledge.  In which case, the hole got easier.  It's certainly not obvious to me that one is better architecture than the other ... just different.

My thought is that the rough, especially the "US Open" style rough, really has little to do with golf course architecture, but rather the maintenance/course setup practices.

When a course has a natural feature, such as the cliffs at PB, isolating that feature with a strip of thick rough takes that feature out of play, effectively diminishing the architecture.  

It may be argued whether that matters at all when setting up a course for a championship test.  Maybe it doesn't, but as one who observes and studies golf course architecture, I like to see the features of a course actually come into play.  If they shoot under par, so be it.  The unrelenting style of narrow ribbons of fairway lined with thick rough essentially makes every course look and play the same.  

 

Growing out the rough has always been the method the USGA  has used to defend par. If even par is the desired winning score how many options are there? I don`t believe that the USGA or the fans want a birdie fest. I agree to some extent about diminishing the intended design features but this is the U.S. Open-The ultimate test. 

[Chip Gaskins]

To me it seems that since Mike Davis came on board things have begun to change for the better.  Short par 4s at Oakmont and Torrey Pines.  Graduated rough at Pinehurst (hey its better than the Baltursol, Oak Hill, knee high days), etc....

I assume the folks that own/run Pinehurst had to have the USGA's blessing to do what they are doing to Pinehurst #2 so close to the U.S. Open.

Those pictures of #6 at Pebble make the fairway bunkers on the left play bigger than they really are because they push the player to challenge the right side, which now has the peril of going over the cliff.  Very good for you USGA. 

If you allow the ball to run into the bunker then the bunkers play much larger than they really are which at face value would make a course play harder, however if you offset it with wider fairways then you really do bring angles, options and decisions back into the game. Hopefully this is a sustained trend in Far Hills.

So wonder what this means for the set up at Merion?

Wonder if Fazio is intimately involved in Far Hills with what seems to be a bold new direction?

[Mike Jansen]

Shaving down the grass right over the cliff is one thing... but its the rough that is gonna kill these guys.  Our guests out there are seriously injuring themselves trying to play out of it.  That is if your foursome, plus two caddies can even find it!  The only option you have is to hack your LW back into the fairway... the grass is long, sticky and the ball sinks right down to the bottom.

[Chip Gaskins]

Mike-

Are you talking about the other areas of rough at PB?  Is this picture of #6 not indicative of the rest of the course?

[Eric Johnson]

I notice that no superintendents have posted on this thread yet.

I appreciate what they are trying to do, but mowing the edge of the fairway over a cliff like that is very dangerous not only for players, but for the guys on the mowers.  I hope they aren't going to try to keep that look once the Open is done, or it is an accident waiting to happen.

I doubt they are maintaining this area on a mower...more likely mowing the edge with a flymo and/or a string trimmer.  That said, it would be less puckery on a dry surface compared to a dew-covered surface....even with a flymo.

[TEPaul]

"Wonder if Fazio is intimately involved in Far Hills with what seems to be a bold new direction?"


Why would Fazio be intimately involved in a new USGA/Far Hills direction in US Open et al set-ups?

[Scott_Burroughs]

I notice that no superintendents have posted on this thread yet.

I appreciate what they are trying to do, but mowing the edge of the fairway over a cliff like that is very dangerous not only for players, but for the guys on the mowers.  I hope they aren't going to try to keep that look once the Open is done, or it is an accident waiting to happen.

I doubt they are maintaining this area on a mower...more likely mowing the edge with a flymo and/or a string trimmer.  That said, it would be less puckery on a dry surface compared to a dew-covered surface....even with a flymo.

That's what I was going to say....and besides, rough needs to be mowed, too.  How is mowing rough on the edge of the cliff any different?

[Matt Harrison]

Re:  the title of this thread- I don't think we can assume that the a dramatic shift is taking place based on 1 hole at Pebble.  Davis has done some cool stuff to a few holes over the years that make them play more strategic, but the overall feel of a US Open has not changed a lot, in my opinion. 

[Michael Taylor]

I appreciate what they are trying to do, but mowing the edge of the fairway over a cliff like that is very dangerous not only for players, but for the guys on the mowers.  I hope they aren't going to try to keep that look once the Open is done, or it is an accident waiting to happen.

I also agree with Tom.

It's a good idea in hindsight, but it could end up being quite dangerous. I mean, what if Phil Mickleson hits hit shot to within a foot or two of the cliff? He'd be risking his life to play the shot.

I'm not sure how wide the fairway is, but couldn't it end up being unplayable if they got heavy winds from left to right?

I am excited to see how this course plays with some minor changes, but put me down in the 'skeptics' category.

Pup

[Matt_Ward]

Mike Davis has resurrected an event that was on the fast slide to second tier status -- thanks to all the clear fumbles with earlier events -- see the goofy pin location at Olympics 18th -- the debacle at SH's 7th hole and the entire final round meltdown the greens there.

I may be stepping out onto a limb here but I believe over the long haul Mike Davis will far surpass whay was contibuted to the US Open through the likes of Joe Dey, Richard Tufts, P.J. Boatwright, et al.

Mike David understands what shotmaking and mental pressure can be by giving the player MORE alternatives - rather than the mindless robot-like play that has been the pathway chosen by the USGA for too many years.

Glad to see others are hearing and agreeing upon what he is recommending.

The US Open has incorporated elements that should have been done years  ago -- hats off to Davis.

[Dale Jackson]

Mike Davis has resurrected an event that was on the fast slide to second tier status -- thanks to all the clear fumbles with earlier events -- see the goofy pin location at Olympics 18th -- the debacle at SH's 7th hole and the entire final round meltdown the greens there.

I may be stepping out onto a limb here but I believe over the long haul Mike Davis will far surpass whay was contibuted to the US Open through the likes of Joe Dey, Richard Tufts, P.J. Boatwright, et al.

Mike David understands what shotmaking and mental pressure can be by giving the player MORE alternatives - rather than the mindless robot-like play that has been the pathway chosen by the USGA for too many years.

Glad to see others are hearing and agreeing upon what he is recommending.

The US Open has incorporated elements that should have been done years  ago -- hats off to Davis.

Matt, with respect, you have stepped over the line.  I am a huge fan of what Mike Davis has, is and, hopefully, will do.  However, to compare him at this stage with Dey, Tufts and Boatwright is saying too much.  I think you probably meant the comparison to just be with the setup and running of the USGA's main tournaments, but those three gentlemen each contributed a lifetime's work to many facets of golf administration.  They all contributed to the development of golf in a myriad of ways, far beyond what Davis has done so far.  And I say that with nothing but admiration for Mike's work.

[Matt_Ward]

Dale:

Stepped over the line ? Surely you jest.

Joe Dey was an efficient administrator who believed in the old school set-ups of US Opens -- let's overdose with rough and keep the formula the same way -- one tired championship after the next. Tufts and Boatwright were fine adminstrators but equally saw the US Open set-ups as being the same boring formula year after year -- the variety of when you hit the rough -- just play SW out back to the fairway. When Miller exploded for the 63 the USGA went way overboard with what Winged Foot / West was in 1974. So much of the USGA style then was to punish the slightest mishit and keep golf in a fairly one-dimensional pattern. For most people that meant a really tired championship event.

I am not tearing down those gentlemen but elevating Mike Davis for what he did to a tired and predictable brand that was not being all that it can be as our national championship event in golf. Davis, through some smart tweaks and overhauls, has brought to bear real shotmaking -- real decisionmaking -- back to an event where robot-like / snooze-like golf was the norm.

Dale, you can give the others all the brownie points for "administration" -- by all means knock yourself out and I will applaud that too. But the main event for the USGA is the Men's Open -- failure at that event spreads itself out to all other facets of what they do in a annual basis. Mike David understands the core dimension of golf -- getting players to really think -- to provide clear alternatives when deciding upon a shot -- the other three gentlemen never saw the set-up of the US Open as an issue that needed an overhaul. Mike Davis has done that and I believe, that if he continues in the vein he is going, the long term benefits he has crafted and implemented will have far reaching consequences that permeate themselves through the game itself.

[JC Jones]

I notice that no superintendents have posted on this thread yet.

I appreciate what they are trying to do, but mowing the edge of the fairway over a cliff like that is very dangerous not only for players, but for the guys on the mowers.  I hope they aren't going to try to keep that look once the Open is done, or it is an accident waiting to happen.

what do they use to mow the rough on the edge of the cliff?

[Rick Sides]

What do they use to mow over the cliffs?

JC, they use fly mowers to mow over the cliffs.  The fly mowers are mowers with no wheels which basically hover over the ground while cutting.  A lot of course use fly mowers around the greens where there is difficult bunkering to mow with a hand mower.

[TEPaul]

"I appreciate what they are trying to do, but mowing the edge of the fairway over a cliff like that is very dangerous not only for players, but for the guys on the mowers.  I hope they aren't going to try to keep that look once the Open is done, or it is an accident waiting to happen."



TomD:


That's a very good point; I didn't even think of that. I plan on going out there for the US Open week so maybe I could ask the super or whatever what they plan to do with that area on #6 after the US Open.

It's also hard to tell if someone did fall off those close-mown shoulders over-hanging the bay on #6 how far down the drop is to the water.

I can just see myself on the crew mowing that bank and slipping and falling into the bay and having the super on the radio say: "Hey Tom Paul, where are you at the moment?"-----and me radioing back; "I'm swimming in the bay on the right of #6 boss, and one of your mowers is at the bottom of the bay."

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

If you drove over that edge it would be hard to tell you apart from the seals yopu would havde landed on the rocks below...

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Can you please clarify your comments re. the US Open becoming a "second-tier" event, inducing "mindless, robot-like play" produced by "old school set-ups"?

A few facts:

-- Davis took over setting up the US Open in 2006. That year's Open (WFoot), and the one that followed (Oakmont) produced the two highest winning scores relative to par (+5) since...(wait for it)...your much-derided '74 Massacre-at-WFoot Open (+7).

-- Between 1975 (the first post-Massacre-at-WF Open) and 2005, the winning score at the US Open was under par 25 times, even par 4 times, and over par twice. Under Davis, the winning score has been over par (by a lot -- +5 in each case) twice, and under par twice.

-- The average under-par winning score at the US Open between '75 and '05 was -4.3 (I threw out Tiger's -12 at Pebble in '00). The average over-par winning score at the Open during the same time period was +2 (two samples) compared to +5 in the Davis era (two samples).

Question: How, exactly, has the US Open become more exciting in the Davis era? More exciting than the Stewart-Mickelson duel down the stretch at Pinehurst in '99? More exciting than Pavin running down Norman on the back nine in '95, with one of the great Open shots of all time on the 18th hole? More exciting than the Goosen-Mickelson duel on the back nine in '04 at Shinnecock? More exciting than the Els-Monty-Lehman back nine at Congressional in '97?

I guess you enjoy Lucas Glover teeing off with a 6-iron at #18 to insure his lead at Bethpage Black. Now that's rousing stuff...

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

The US Open for way too many years was always tolerated by many golf fans because of the stature of the event -- the mechanism for course set-ups often went way overboard and as a result you didn't get shotmaking per se - you simply got survival type skills.

The issue at WF/W was that roughs were set-up properly -- I have been to each of the majors held at the club since the '74 event and not counting the '97 PGA -- the set-up for the '06 event was well done. WF/W just happens to be a tough hombre and birdies were at a premium. Simple as that. Try to keep in mind that Davis was only getting started with that first event at the top of the helm.

Let's talk about Oakmont -- the '83 US Open and even the '94 Opens played there were overdone with high rough, the profusion of trees and the lack of imagination with a number of holes there. Let me add -- since you seem to have amnesia -- the 2nd was played a driveable par-4 -- the 17th played really well throughout the week.

Pinehurst #2 was not prepared the way it will when C&C are finished with what they are doing.

Davis even made Torry Pines exciting -- it also helps to have the Woods / Mediate showdown.

One final thing -- I never liked the 18th at BB for the hole it is -- Davis was limited there because of the desire of NY State not to make any real changes there. I did not like the Glover tee shot there but the set-up for BB was well done given what was done in '02. Phil, the issue of score is not the only dynamic -- it's the manner by which he set-ups are done and what elasticity in shotmaking is provided for.

Phil -- you talk about SH and '04 -- the event went over-the-top with what took place on the final rounds. The Lefty / Goose confrontation was not the main storyline -- it was how the USGA screwed up a solid venue that didn't need any help. Mayb e you can explain the idiotic pin placement at Olympic's 18th hole. Did you forget that one too ?

[Phil McDade]

Matt:

Since 1974 (an over-the-top set-up, in my view), the USGA has made two major mistakes with green set-ups -- Olympic's 18th, when Stewart had the goofy three-putt, and the watering of one green at SH. Shinnecock's latest Open set-up struck me as nearly perfect -- just on the edge of over-the-top, but (with that one exception) not quite there. If it was over-the-top, how do you explain Mickelson's birdies down the stretch and Goosen's run of one-putts on the back nine? And a winning score under par? Seems like the set-up produced the combination of opportunities for scoring but punishment for not-quite-certain execution.

C&C will be lucky to create a set-up that produces an Open as exciting as the '99 Open at Pinehurst.

Under Davis, the US Open now has driveable par 4s that you view as exciting to watch, and make the Open less boring. I think you can have exciting tournaments in a variety of Open set-ups. And if you think watching the first two days of the '09 Open at the Black simulating the John Deere tourney, with huge numbers of under-par scores (produced in part because of Davis' set-up), then your views on the US Open are quite different than mine.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

Your memory must be slowing with age -- let's not forget the debacle with the 18th at Southern Hills in '01. The USGA was making more errors in the time frame that has preceded Mike Davis.

The Phil / Goose show was spectacular but you don't judge the success / failiure of an event by only two men -- the overall drying out of SH after the 2nd round in '04 was a major fiasco and the resulting fallout is still being felt out given how SH has not returned to the rota.

C&C understand what Pinehurst #2 needs to be about -- yes, the '99 event was fun with PS winning. But you seem to forget all the other dog events tied to robot like set-ups. Shall I name them all for you since the '74 massacre at WF?

Phil, knock youself out and enjoy your medieval thinking of what a US is about. Davis doesn't hesitate to think outside the box -- that's not been the thinking for so many years and as a result the US Open was quickly dispatched to the 3rd position among all the majors --trailing The Open and Masters. That has now changed in my mind.

[Phil_the_Author]

Phil,

On this one point I think you're mistaken...

"And if you think watching the first two days of the '09 Open at the Black simulating the John Deere tourney, with huge numbers of under-par scores (produced in part because of Davis' set-up), then your views on the US Open are quite different than mine..."

The extreme weather for the month leading up to the Open and that which plagued it during play caused much of the planned course set-up to have to be abandoned. Despite that and including hole locations that were more than generous, let's see, the winning score was 4 under and how many players broke par for the tournament including those with scores of 64-66? I think you can literally count them on one hand.

I think that if you can choose to ignore the Tiger masacre at Pebble than you should also not include this one in your calculations...

[JSPayne]

I notice that no superintendents have posted on this thread yet.

I appreciate what they are trying to do, but mowing the edge of the fairway over a cliff like that is very dangerous not only for players, but for the guys on the mowers.  I hope they aren't going to try to keep that look once the Open is done, or it is an accident waiting to happen.

Tom,

As a super and someone who appriciates good architecture and shot-making decision designs, I hope they keep the fairway edge just like it is. I think you need to pay more attention to the top picture.....that is what it should look like year-round.

Take away the irrigation, the fertilizer and plant some low growing native dunes grasses if necessary, the most maintenance you'd have to do is weedeat it by hand once in a while. Far less dangerous than trying to get a mower close to that edge, even if they do go back to maintaining it as rough. I think the dry, firm, fast, non-fertilized look and play in fringe hazard areas like these are exactly what the USGA is trying to promote with their new maintenance philosophies.

What's more....teach golfers the rules of golf and tell them to take their drop immediately instead of hanging over the cliff edge wondering if they can find let alone play their $5 golf ball and the area accomplishes the goal of correcting two major issues in golf today with one successful swoop! You leave it tall rough or native that will stop a drive just short of the cliff and players are going to try to sneak up to the edge, hang one foot out in space and hack at it just to advance it 2 feet into the same lie.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()