Would you move the tee back on the seventeenth?

[Phil McDade]

For all of the praise expressed on this site for Mike Davis' set-ups at national opens, they seem increasingly odd -- BBlack's unusually wide set-ups and graduated rough that allowed record-low scores the first two days of the '09 Open, the goofy pin placement on the tiny lip of a par 3 green at the Black on the final day of the Open, the forcing of a driveable par 4 at Torrey Pines on a hole that wasn't meant to be driven, the two days of sub-100 yard par 3 tees at the 7th at Pebble, and now the odd choice of tees at 17 at Oakmont the past week, esp. Sunday. (And that's not even getting into 14 and 17 at Pebble...)

Does the Emperor still have clothes?

[Link Walsh]

I agree.  I don't think enough negative attention was placed on the obvious mistake at Bethpage last year on Sunday at 18.  The hole played terribly- it was almost a negative to drive it up close because no one could stop the ball near the front pin.  It was a shame to end the Open on a hole where the leader could hit a 6 iron off the tee and then a wedge to the green.

It would have been nice to mix up 17 a little to make them play it as a 2 shot hole once or twice.  But why move the tee up even further on Sunday?  The girls were mostly giving it a go the whole week anyway (at least what I was ABLE to watch on tv). 

[Jerry Kluger]

Did they move up the 18th as well on Sunday - I thought I heard Johnny Miller make a comment to that effect and seemed disappointed that they did.  I got the feeling that by Sunday the women had figured out how to play the course and the scoring went down - to me that is what it should be about - I really didn't like the men's event where they thought they winner played a great final round and he was 3 over par.

[George Pazin]

The 17th played way too short. Either they wanted it that way or they underestimated how long the women hit the ball and the amount of risk they are willing to take on.

I agree with this Pat, not the other one. Ran's last post is excellent also.

250 might have been okay, 229 was far too short, especially given how straight the women hit it. I'm inclined to think they did underestimate how far most hit it.

People tend to be influenced by extremes, imho, as it's the extremes that stick out and are remembered. Dustin Johnson smokes one 380 and everyone assumes that he does that every time. A few women hit 230 yard drives and many assume that's the rule, not the exception.

Overall, I thought the setup was a tad too easy, but then again, I wasn't the one playing, so maybe I can't appreciate how hard it really was. I still wish they'd have some pros play it today.

[Mike Hendren]

I think the USGA is doing a much better job with championship set-ups, but am concerned with the liberties they are taking by playing architect in making par fours driveable.   This is a slippery slope.   To date, they've maintained their balance, however.

Mike

[JC Jones]

"It's a little weird seeing a par four listed at 229 yards on the same day as a par-three being played at 250+."


Is that right? Did they play #8 at 250+ again yesterday? Well then with that as a par 3 and #17 as a 229 yard par 4 that sure is par skewing. Very cool. Maybe Mike Davis should talk to Oakmont about how Paula Creamer posts her final round score for handicap purposes. 

Who cares what par is listed at?

[Phil McDade]

"It's a little weird seeing a par four listed at 229 yards on the same day as a par-three being played at 250+."


Is that right? Did they play #8 at 250+ again yesterday? Well then with that as a par 3 and #17 as a 229 yard par 4 that sure is par skewing. Very cool. Maybe Mike Davis should talk to Oakmont about how Paula Creamer posts her final round score for handicap purposes. 

Who cares what par is listed at?

Then let's get rid of it for all golf courses, in all settings, on all scorecards. Work for both stroke and match play.

[JC Jones]

"It's a little weird seeing a par four listed at 229 yards on the same day as a par-three being played at 250+."


Is that right? Did they play #8 at 250+ again yesterday? Well then with that as a par 3 and #17 as a 229 yard par 4 that sure is par skewing. Very cool. Maybe Mike Davis should talk to Oakmont about how Paula Creamer posts her final round score for handicap purposes. 

Who cares what par is listed at?

Then let's get rid of it for all golf courses, in all settings, on all scorecards. Work for both stroke and match play.

Precisely.  You play the course in as few strokes as possible and everyone compares at the end.  I'm not sure how par adds to the experience.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

The Oakmont members may not have been happy with Sunday's scores:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10193/1072218-136.stm

[George Pazin]

Precisely.  You play the course in as few strokes as possible and everyone compares at the end.  I'm not sure how par adds to the experience.

I believe most credit Augusta/The Masters/Cliff Roberts/Frank Chirkinian (sp?) -  one of those with introducing the concept of updated scoring relative to par so that people have a better idea of where golfers stand throughout a tourney. It would be pretty hard to follow if they simply reported "260 strokes through 70 holes" or whatever.

It is interesting to read older books about the history of golf; they refer much more to things like "So and so was at 142 after the 2nd round and 210 after Saturday". It's a little confusing till you get used to it, and I'm a numbers guy.

Nice post, Bogey.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ran, Steve, et, al.,

It's difficult to know how long a hole is playing on a given day because the announcers are often not accurate in their detailing of a hole and it's length on a particular day.

I was unable to watch a good deal of the Open due to conflicts, but, on Thursday, I watched some of the play.

On the 8th hole the announcers indicated that the hole was playing either 243 or 248, yet, having played Oakmont just prior to the Open, that hole wasn't being played from anywhere near 243 or 248.

This may be an attempt, on the part of the interested parties, to hype and equate the games of the LPGA and the PGA.

As RTJjr stated, there's golf and then there's tournament golf.

There's a pressure that builds as one nears the finish line and that pressure gets compounded when situations requiring decisions are introduced at critical moments.  We see this on the back nine at ANGC every year on # 13 and # 15.

Introducing a decision on the next to the last hole at Oakmont could cause difficulty/uncertainty for some players.

Here are the yardages from the different tees at # 17.

As you can see, this hole was shortened considerably from its everyday play

TEE INFORMATION  
 Green 313  
 Blue 296  
 White 276  
 Red 259  
 
Oakmont describes this hole as follows:
 
"Although some of you can drive this par 4, severe bunkering 50 yards from the green will make you think twice before trying to do so.  Either a long iron and wedge over "Big Mouth" or a driver to the green makes this hole very exciting"

At 229 to the green, that would place the bunkers at 179, hardly a ferocious obstacle at that distance.

While the hole plays uphill, the fronting bunker is taken out of play from 229.

I agree with Ran that playing the hole at 229 was a substantive mistake, a concession to "cutiepieness", but, going to 313 wouldn't make for better theatre, nor would it create any decisions.  The default mechanism at 313 would dictate a drive to the ideal "target area" followed by a short iron to the green.

Why would you play a par 4, that plays 259 for the women golfers at Oakmont, and play it at 229 for the best women golfers in the world ?
 
Play should have been from approximately 276 to 296 bringing the troublesome bunkers into play at 226 to 246.  

[Mike Cirba]

For all the criticism they get, it seems interesting to me that the USGA was able to setup Oakmont in a way where only a single competitor equalled, or broke par in the Women's Open.

For those of us thinking that Oakmont hosting a Ladies tournament would inevitably end in a bloodbath of over par numbers, that took some incredibly deft handling in terms of setup and day-to-day conditioning to achieve the desired outcome I'd imagine.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I think most, if not everyone of us, forgets from time to time, that these old great courses were crafted when MATCH NOT MEDAL play ruled the day.

As to scoring, if the rough hadn't been cultivated to allow for graded levels of recovery, scores would have soared.

[Link Walsh]

"Why would you play a par 4, that plays 259 for the women golfers at Oakmont, and play it at 229 for the best women golfers in the world?"
 

But then one could ask the same question regarding shortening a hole here and there for the men's Open, couldn't they?  Was it dramatic what they did a few years ago at Torey by shortening that par 4?  I think yes.  But it was a novelty that did not work at Bethpage.

Maybe it didn't work at Oakmont because Creamer had too big of a lead when she got to 17.  Do I agree with the move up on Sunday?  I don't really know if it was that necessary considering most of the girls I saw playing that hole earlier in the week were already going for the green anyway.  So why make a move at all?   

[Matt_Ward]

In my three visit to TOC I always liked the 455-yard markers at #17.

Why?

It forced people to try for the green in two blows -- especially for those players in The Open who have a short iron to play. I laugh at Dawson's comments that the hole has become less so -- has he not checked the stroke average for the last two Opens played there?

The sad fact is the new tee box will only result in players laying up and pitching from that point to the hole. Dawson says he wants to bring the road back into play -- the sad fact is that the new tee further reduces that probability.

Baiting the players is what worked with the 455-yard marker -- the 494-yard marker will have few takers for the cheese presented.

[Carl Nichols]

In my three visit to TOC I always liked the 455-yard markers at #17.

Why?

It forced people to try for the green in two blows -- especially for those players in The Open who have a short iron to play. I laugh at Dawson's comments that the hole has become less so -- has he not checked the stroke average for the last two Opens played there?

The sad fact is the new tee box will only result in players laying up and pitching from that point to the hole. Dawson says he wants to bring the road back into play -- the sad fact is that the new tee further reduces that probability.

Baiting the players is what worked with the 455-yard marker -- the 494-yard marker will have few takers for the cheese presented.

Matt:
You might want to read the thread.  Wrong 17th. 

[Matt_Ward]

Carl:

Thanks -- in regards to the 17th at Oakmont -- pushing up the tee marks for the gals worked well.

Allows plenty of options and clear mind games to overcome.

appreciate the correction ...

[Ran Morrissett]

The USGA has never moved a par four tee so far forward for the men that 100% of the field could reach it, which is what they did at the 17th at Oakmont. My question is why the different treatment?

Also, again, the pitch to the 17th is one of the most nerve-racking shots on the course. Why get rid of of one of the best shots on a course?    Why not play the hole at 300+ for at least two of the days?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Matt,

How did it work well at 229 yards ?

Why wouldn't the best women players in the world try to drive the green, leaving them a little pitch or bunker shot if they were unsuccessful.

It becomes a long par 3 at 229.

[John Moore II]

The USGA has never moved a par four tee so far forward for the men that 100% of the field could reach it, which is what they did at the 17th at Oakmont. My question is why the different treatment?

Also, again, the pitch to the 17th is one of the most nerve-racking shots on the course. Why get rid of of one of the best shots on a course?    Why not play the hole at 300+ for at least two of the days?

Never? I strongly suspect that the entire field could reach the green at Torrey Pines, the 14th as I recall, when they played it up at 265 yards in 2008.

Though, yes, they should have played the hole long enough to force they to have that 50ish yard pitches.

[Tags:]

Tags: