Aronimink...the course is the star

[mike_malone]

  I believe Dan's point comes from Jim Furyk's comments. It explains why they kept coming up short on their putts which was something that baffled Faldo.

[JESII]

The greens looked really fast to me...is there confirmation that they were slower than day-to-day play?

I've played the course once a year, most years for the last 15 and never felt they were as fast as they looked on TV this week...although last summer was really close.

[Mike Cirba]

I heard from Ron Prichard that the tour asked them to run the greens at 11.5.

Another anecdote from someone else indicated they told the Superintendent to run them at the speeds he might for a Ladies Member-Guest.   I can't confirm if that's true, or not.

[D_Malley]

Do you think we will see the membership at AGC demanding

"slower greens and more varied tee locations"

[Dan Boerger]

One of the caddies who worked in the Wed Pro-Am told me the greens were running a bit slower than normal. They appeared to pick up some pace, and to normal, the rest of the weekend.

[mike_malone]

 I loved that  #8 had 3 different tee locations---all the way back with the pin in the easiest spot, then forward one for the far right pin location, then down more and right for Sat. and Sun.  That was nice variety.

[TEPaul]

"TEP: Perhaps it is my sick mind but I actually think I understand the concept that slower greens allow for more pinnable locations."


Jerry:

Basically that reality, as used by Aronimink last week, is probably way less that half the beauty or effectiveness of that overall setup; The vast majority of the beauty or effectiveness of it to me is they did that (slowed the greens just enough) to be able to seriously firm up those green surfaces so aerial approach shots became highly strategic to the pin positions they used. Basically on most of those greens even those guys were definitely not pin hunting and in some cases they were purposely steering well wide of a very good number of pins just to be able to putt on their next shot.

The slightly slower greens speeds just meant that at least it was physically doable to transition the ball from most anywhere on any green to the day's pin. It wasn't easy in some cases but at least it was doable in the realm of physics. If those greens had been 12+ to 13 (which Aronimink does run regularly like some of the other clubs around here these days) it wouldn't have been doable in the realm of physics to a good number of those pin positions they used.

[JESII]

The slightly slower greens speeds just meant that at least it was physically doable to transition the ball from most anywhere on any green to the day's pin. It wasn't easy in some cases but at least it was doable in the realm of physics. If those greens had been 12+ to 13 (which Aronimink does run regularly like some of the other clubs around here these days) it wouldn't have been doable in the realm of physics to a good number of those pin positions they used.

I wonder if this is a desireable goal for this level of play.

[JESII]

Or any level of play...should the putting green be a safe haven?

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Or any level of play...should the putting green be a safe haven?

Jim, in what context do you mean this? 

I am understanding this as, just because a player is on the green, doesn't mean they are guaranteed a two putt?  Is this what you're asking?

[TEPaul]

"I wonder if this is a desireable goal for this level of play."


Sully:

Of course THAT is the ultimate question, isn't it?

However, are you aware of any course or any tournament those top players have ever played at when that was essentially NOT the desirable goal at least in the realm of physics? I'm not saying some putts from some areas of greens have not been extremely challenging for them to two putt but at least the "set-up" people seem to understand it is doable in the realm of physics and they seem to set it up that way.

There have been some well known notable exceptions such as a few greens at Shinnecock in '04 (not necessarily with putting but with approaching) and maybe the Olympic thing with Stewart (we talked about that he may've just gotten too agressive when others didn't from where he was and two putted) but those seem to have been the exceptions for which the set-up people were criticized and over which THAT became the big story of the entire tournament.

[JESII]

Doug,

Yes...even further, why should they be guaranteed a good chance of putting the ball inside of two or three feet?


Tom,

Wouldn't it improve risk taking - or at least strategic thought - from the fairway if a few holes per round were cut so it's preferable to miss the green on the short side than to hit it 50 feet away?

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Doug,

Yes...even further, why should they be guaranteed a good chance of putting the ball inside of two or three feet?


Tom,

Wouldn't it improve risk taking - or at least strategic thought - from the fairway if a few holes per round were cut so it's preferable to miss the green on the short side than to hit it 50 feet away?

Jim,  
 
  I totally agree with you.  I think your home course is like that, regardless of who cuts the hole locations  

How do scratch players like yourself look at this?  Do you come across it very much in GAP events, for example?  What do other players say about this?

My personal opinion is, no, they shouldn't.  And, this is an opinion, but we shouldn't necessarily feel that we should be guaranteed a two-putt if we happen to land on the green.   When playing your course (F-T nines) in last year's Volunteers Day, I 3-putted a bunch of times.  I'm a pretty good putter, but I had so much fun.  Maybe if I was playing for a LOT of money, or championships, in your case, I may feel differently.  What do you think?  From everything I read, the highest level players want "fair".

We don't have any architects weighing in here yet; I would like to hear from them their thoughts on the design of putting greens.  

I was talking with a member of a course I worked at a several years ago, and their architect said words to the effect that a golf shot, or maybe a good golf shot, should stay on the golf course.  Whatever that means.  If you know my history, you'll know where I am referring to.  The greens didn't feature a lot of interest in terms of contour or break--speed, yes.  

Now, I guess the rub is, or maybe the skill in this comes from being able to set a golf course up so it's challenging but not tricked up.

I think in the case of Bethpage Black, with the exception of #15 green, yes, the greens are a safe haven.  Because if you've got the speed right, they're relatively simple.  Relatively.  (I'm not bashing BB, I am making a fair comparison to other courses).  I would think PV is like this, meaning, when one is on the green, it's not a simple two-putt.    Getting back to Aronimink, I have seen other Ross like this.  Schuylkill is one.  Mid Pines and PN were pretty mild, as I remember, in contrast.  Again, this may have to do with the evollution of Ross.  Not to sidetrack this, but if Brad Klein or Michael Fay read this, when were MP, PN, AGC, and Plainfield built?    

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I should also remind, for what it's worth, that in the definition of "par" in the USGA Handicap Manual, at least, it does say that expert play also contemplates two putts on each green!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Wouldn't it improve risk taking - or at least strategic thought - from the fairway if a few holes per round were cut so it's preferable to miss the green on the short side than to hit it 50 feet away?"


Sully:

You're askiing if it would improve risk taking---particularly strategically---to actually try to MISS THE GREEN rather than hit the green 50 feet away if it would make the next shot easier.

Of course that is and certainly has become a reality in some cases these days (I think of the first Coleman I played in at Seminole) but that does not seem to be a concept that the "philosophers" of golf, in this case the USGA and R&A in their definition of "par" have quite yet contemplated or considered or at least written! 

In their explanation of "ideal" play (eg an "expert" (scratch) et al) the basic idea or expectation is to hit par 3s in one, par 4s in two and par 5s at least in three!

[TEPaul]

DougB:


I'll tell you how GAP and PA Golf Assoc's Executive Director, Mark Petersen, feels about what you and Sully are asking, having worked with him out there sometimes on pin positions and setups.

He says he does not necessarily feel that just because a player hits a green somewhere or anywhere to the particular pin that day that they should be guaranteed a two putt, perhaps even in the realm of physics, but the reality has always been he is pretty cautious about how far to push that philosophy on particular greens in most or some situations.

It's just a "feel" thing if you know what I mean and the reality is anyway we never have the time real early in the morning and before play comes through to test this kind of thing from all over every green to every pin in every situation.

[JESII]

Tom,

Regarding those three posts, I guess I should ask if you think any expert players think about the golf course that way anymore? Let's consider Mark and anyone better than him and expert...

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
Regarding those three posts, I guess I should ask if you think any expert players think about the golf course that way anymore?"


Sully:

That's a very good question and probably a very important one too, at least for the future, considering the way things are beginning to go these days. Obviously I've never tried to solicit the opinions of expert players so comprehensively it could be considered a reliable poll-taking type thing but I sure have talked to a number of them about various things they face with set-ups and stuff, particularly after rounds and the officiating is done. The ones whose opinions I find the most interesting are some of the young ones who don't remember the way things used to be.

What do you find some of your good playing friends think about what you mentioned-----eg it might be more appropriate strategically to try to miss a green in the right place rather than to hit a shot on to a green 50 feet away from a tough pin?   

[JESII]

They think I'm nuts...why else would I like the idea so much?

[TEPaul]

"They think I'm nuts...why else would I like the idea so much?"



Maybe your friends think your nuts about that but apparently the USGA set-up genius and guru Mike Davis doesn't think your nuts. Check out the second article on the front page of the USGA's website entitled "Oakmont's Crazy Eighth." Yesterday it was set up at 252yds, a full 27 longer than any par 3 in Womens Open history. For the 2007 US Open at Oakmont that hole could play as a full 300 yard par 3. It seems the most intelligent play yesterday was to leave it in the approach right in front of the front pin for an uphill putt. (or chip). Judging from what one competitor did---eg hit a driver to the back of the green only to three putt down the hill to the front pin, the latter play was the best strategically!