News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Jim Nugent

Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #75 on: September 18, 2011, 03:21:59 PM »
IMO any club or course that hosts a PGA/USGA tournament is fair game for critiques/criticisms.  In public.  No one forces clubs to host events: they seek them out.  They want the prestige that can come with big tournaments?  Then I feel they must also take the risk that the world and/or players will not love their course. 

Tiger_Bernhardt

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #76 on: September 18, 2011, 04:00:12 PM »
I found the comments to be Phil most significant contribution to the game. I guess one could say his short game is and I would not argue with the comment being 2nd.

Tim_Cronin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #77 on: September 18, 2011, 05:04:24 PM »
Mickelson with a 4-over 75 today for a 72-hole aggregate of 7-over 291. That's T-56 at the moment.
The website: www.illinoisgolfer.net
On Twitter: @illinoisgolfer

Phil McDade

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #78 on: September 18, 2011, 06:49:25 PM »
Mickelson with a 4-over 75 today for a 72-hole aggregate of 7-over 291. That's T-56 at the moment.

Which makes his comments less credible? All golfers have lousy weeks.

I'm guessing there is a pretty wide spectrum between the golfing abilities of Ben Crenshaw (two-time major winner) and Tom Doak (an admitted average-to-pretty-good golfer). Both have really interesting things to say about golf architecture.


Tim_Cronin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #79 on: September 18, 2011, 08:58:31 PM »
Mickelson with a 4-over 75 today for a 72-hole aggregate of 7-over 291. That's T-56 at the moment.

Which makes his comments less credible? All golfers have lousy weeks.

I'm guessing there is a pretty wide spectrum between the golfing abilities of Ben Crenshaw (two-time major winner) and Tom Doak (an admitted average-to-pretty-good golfer). Both have really interesting things to say about golf architecture.



Just passing along facts. He doubled the 18th, by the way. Oh, and thanks for mentioning Ben Crenshaw, who won at Cog Hill in 1992.
The website: www.illinoisgolfer.net
On Twitter: @illinoisgolfer

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #80 on: September 18, 2011, 09:19:27 PM »
I was out there today inside the ropes. The course looked angry. I ran into Frank Jemsek. He looked typically serene. The crowd was small but gritty. And if this was Cog's last BMW it went out cold, wet and...well, yawning. Not much drama.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #81 on: September 18, 2011, 09:32:00 PM »
I don't buy that a Tour event venue is a pro's "host".

If I am hosted at a club, no doubt I am hosted and the host has done me a solid to welcome me to his home.

To suggest the same is true of a course that hosts a Tour event, you'd need to convince me the club/owner wasn't gaining massively out of hosting the tournament. In most cases I feel the host course gains more out of the deal than the Tour and certainly gets more from the arrangement than the players do.

As for the line "don't blame the architect, he only did what the customer asked him to"... I disagree. In all of our lines of work we have the option to walk away from work we believe is not right -- if you see that the requested work is poor and go ahead with it to get the pay cheque, you need to accept the brickbats.

John Shimp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #82 on: September 18, 2011, 10:02:30 PM »
How about the bunker to the right of 18 green?  Obscene really. Do you even need one?   What an artist.

Sam Morrow

Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #83 on: September 18, 2011, 10:13:04 PM »
Have Rees Jones and Phil Mickelson surpassed Merion as the biggest lighting rod on this site?

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #84 on: September 19, 2011, 06:52:38 AM »
I don't buy that a Tour event venue is a pro's "host".

If I am hosted at a club, no doubt I am hosted and the host has done me a solid to welcome me to his home.

To suggest the same is true of a course that hosts a Tour event, you'd need to convince me the club/owner wasn't gaining massively out of hosting the tournament. In most cases I feel the host course gains more out of the deal than the Tour and certainly gets more from the arrangement than the players do.

As for the line "don't blame the architect, he only did what the customer asked him to"... I disagree. In all of our lines of work we have the option to walk away from work we believe is not right -- if you see that the requested work is poor and go ahead with it to get the pay cheque, you need to accept the brickbats.
+1

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #85 on: September 19, 2011, 07:24:18 AM »
Have Rees Jones and Phil Mickelson surpassed Merion as the biggest lighting rod on this site?

Probably not but at least it's a respite from The Dismal Channel!   ;D
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #86 on: September 19, 2011, 09:05:05 AM »

A tournament is a lot more than just the owner/members of the hosting club.  It is likely over 1,000 volunteers.  It is a group of business leaders that oversee the event and make sure that the expensive hospitality suites are purchased (ranging from $75,000-$150,000 for the week).  It is usually several local employees that run the event through the year.  For instance, every tournament has a player services committee made up of volunteers that cater to every whim of the players throughout the week, including transporting their wives and children to nearby amusement parks or broadway shows or other sporting events.

This entire community made up of the club, the city, the business community and volunteers is without question a "host" to the players for the week.  When a player comes to town and bashes the course or the event, he is bashing his host. 

Read any biography on Bobby Jones and you will learn what a mistake it is to bash the tournament and course in which you play.  Jones regularly said that his criticism of St. Andrews and the Open Championship was one of his worst mistakes in his golf career.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #87 on: September 19, 2011, 09:35:42 AM »

This entire community made up of the club, the city, the business community and volunteers is without question a "host" to the players for the week.  When a player comes to town and bashes the course or the event, he is bashing his host.  



That is the broadest definition of "host" I can possibly imagine. Do you really believe this or is it just a back handed attempt to bolster your original argument?

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #88 on: September 19, 2011, 11:17:01 AM »

Tim:

I have been involved with a PGA Tour event for fifteen years.  There is no doubt that there is a broad tent as to who hosts an event.  There are over 1,000 volunteers for the event and most give a week's vacation to the tournament - mostly because they realize the impact that an event has on the community.  Most volunteers don't know the difference between Phil Mickelson and Duffy Waldorf.  I have been fortunate to run several committees including player hospitality.  Likewise, the members of the club give up their course for over 2 weeks and put up with a ton of inconveniences due to the importance of the event (club members actually have to buy tickets to come to their club for the tournament).  Also, business leaders buy overpriced suites mostly because of the economic impact of the event to the community. 

I just think that a player that is walking into town for 5 days and being treated like a king and walking out with a big check, should be grateous to his hosts at least in public.  If there are problems with the event or the course, I don't have a problem with the player making them known privately to Finchem.  If they are serious and cannot be corrected, maybe the site loses the event - fine.  But you don't publicly blast the broad group of people that are hosting you for a week.  It is just poor form.     

Most players are exceptionally good people and grateous to the club and volunteers (the european players are exceptionally good to deal with).  Some unfortunately are not.  My statement that most Tour employees dislike Phil is true.  However, I will tell you that he does some good things - like signing autographs for kids longer than any other player.  He just follows it up with demands and actions that are "difficult".   
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #89 on: September 19, 2011, 12:31:23 PM »
...
Read any biography on Bobby Jones and you will learn what a mistake it is to bash the tournament and course in which you play.  Jones regularly said that his criticism of St. Andrews and the Open Championship was one of his worst mistakes in his golf career.


You keep repeating this, but it does not apply.

Bobby Jones made a mistake in his assessment of the course.

Unless you are claiming that Phil make a mistake in his assessment of the course, it does not apply.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #90 on: September 19, 2011, 12:33:01 PM »
My statement that most Tour employees dislike Phil is true. 

You know most PGA Tour employees?  How many of them are there?

Bill Seitz

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #91 on: September 19, 2011, 12:35:03 PM »
I'm someone who plays and enjoys Dubs about three or four times per year, so take this with a grain of salt.  My problem with Phil's (and others) comments is that in the end, they don't do anything constructive, and the brunt of the negative impact will go towards Cog Hill and the Jemseks.  As was pointed out above, they're collateral damage in Phil's personal war with Rees Jones, and Phil either doesn't know this (in which case he needs to think harder), or he does know this (in which case, he's being a real ass).  The Jemseks are left with a course that will now probably lose some prestige.  In addition to that, we've just had a week of television coverage filled with professional golfers basically telling the general public "Don't come play this place, because it's too hard for you average hacks".  I'm not in marketing, but something tells me that's not great for business.  While I'm disappointed with Stricker's comments, I assume he was speaking off the cuff, responding to a reporter's question.  Phil's attack seemed much more calculated, whatever the motivation.  

Unfortunately for Cog Hill and the Jemseks, the USGA is changing.  Probably for the better overall, but not necessarily for Cog.  The re-do would have been great 15 years ago, when the USGA was looking to add public courses to the rotation, but still liked going to very difficult layouts, and as a result added courses like Torrey and Bethpage.  

Cog Hill now stands, like Commiskey Park, as the second major sports venue in town that was re-done for the wrong era.  Commiskey was the last new stadium built before Camden Yards, and from what I recall, Reinsdorf nixed a retro-style stadium for something more modern, and the facility has been criticized ever since.  History repeats, I guess.  

Sam Morrow

Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #92 on: September 19, 2011, 12:42:30 PM »
Have Rees Jones and Phil Mickelson surpassed Merion as the biggest lighting rod on this site?

Probably not but at least it's a respite from The Dismal Channel!   ;D

I dunno, I'm totally waiting for someone to challenge another guy to a duel over this stuff.

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #93 on: September 19, 2011, 12:52:48 PM »
John:   I only know what I have been told.  Of course I don't know all of them.  If you and others have a bro-mance with Phil, I can't help it.

Garland:  While Jones changed his opinion of St. Andrews afterwards, I was of the belief that this episode at St. Andrews was more important because it marked a turning point in his life  - from being a volatile player to the greatest gentleman the game has ever seen.  

"Jones firmly stated his dislike for The Old Course and the town reciprocated, saying in the press, 'Master Bobby is just a boy and an ordinary boy at that.'"   I wish the US press would put players in their place in the same manner.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #94 on: September 19, 2011, 01:05:17 PM »
John:   I only know what I have been told.  Of course I don't know all of them.  If you and others have a bro-mance with Phil, I can't help it.

Your original statement about Mickelson suggested that you have some sort or knowledge about how "most" PGA Tour employees feel about him. Your firsthand knowledge seemed unlikely to me, but before suggesting that I thought I would try to confirm my assumption.  I see my original assumption was correct, and you are trying to state your opinion as fact. 

As for the second part of your comment - classy.  I'm not really a PGA Tour fan at all and wasn't supporting Phil in particular.  I was really just trying to make sense of a silly statement.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #95 on: September 19, 2011, 01:05:22 PM »
The one possibility that seems to be over-looked here is:

For all we know, Phil and others could have already went to Finchem and complained time and time again, only to have nothing come of it.  So if this were the case, what other option would he have but to take it up with the public forum.

There could be similarities to when The Shark tried to get the Tour to play more international events back in the 80s and 90s.  His suggestion fell on deaf ears, and he ended up getting hammered when he tried to create his own version of an international tour.  Then once they shut him up...guess what they came out with?  A much bigger international presence on tour in the form of the WGC events and otherwise.

I get the guys on the PGAtour are very privileged and make a nice living....but just because they do doesn't mean they shouldn't have a voice and or be able to provide criticism over the direction the Tour is headed.   At the end of the day, its no different than any other professional sport league...it needs the best players to be viable long term.  The best players could all move to a different tour and still be eligible to play in 3 of the 4 majors.

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #96 on: September 19, 2011, 01:08:23 PM »
...
Garland:  While Jones changed his opinion of St. Andrews afterwards, I was of the belief that this episode at St. Andrews was more important because it marked a turning point in his life  - from being a volatile player to the greatest gentleman the game has ever seen.  

"Jones firmly stated his dislike for The Old Course and the town reciprocated, saying in the press, 'Master Bobby is just a boy and an ordinary boy at that.'"   I wish the US press would put players in their place in the same manner.

Well, then you would be of the wrong belief.
Best study the history a little more.

I think there are several posters here that are trying to tell you that you are of the wrong belief on several things. Take Mr. Mayhugh's post for example. I think he is trying to point out that you probably are either starting or propagating rumor not based in any possible factual basis.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Eric Smith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #97 on: September 19, 2011, 01:17:16 PM »
Michael,

You shouldn't feel the need to fire at John for his question. It was a legitimate one and there is no need to add that bromance comment to your reply.

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #98 on: September 19, 2011, 01:17:20 PM »
John:  I apologize for the "bro-mance" comment and actually knew that you were not a huge follower of the Tour.  It was not really directed at you but to all of those people that excuse Phil's behavior because they are a fan.  

I think this strand has run its course for me.  I commented because I feel horrible for the owners of Cog Hill, the volunteers (whom if the Tour had to pay, there would not be any $1 billion going to charity ad campaign) and the business community that supported the event and believe that those players that publicly criticized the event and the course are completely out of line.    
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Michael George

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Phil Mickelson quandary
« Reply #99 on: September 19, 2011, 01:19:05 PM »
Eric:

I actually sent my response before I saw your post.  You are 100% correct.
"First come my wife and children.  Next comes my profession--the law. Finally, and never as a life in itself, comes golf" - Bob Jones

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back