[John Chilver-Stainer]

Oosthuizen’s Albatross at 2nd wasn’t just a fluke, it was all part of the vision of the green design and the choice of the pin position.

The Green was certainly designed to swing a ball running in at the front to feed right down and round the corner behind the bunker to where the pin was placed for Day 4. The Pin Position was probably chosen today to accept this line.

According to Sven Nilson’s excellent Thread on the adjustments to ANGC the 2nd Green was rebuilt on the left hand side by George Cobb, however if the right hand side has remained more or less unchanged then the credit for the vision and should go to the Doctor.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

Bobby Jones and AM never contemplated golfers hitting 4 irons into that green on their second shots

The green offers ample challenge on the third sho

[Mac Plumart]

Golf Channel did a real nice discussion of this green pre-Sunday round and they quoted Nicklaus on this pin location.  He talked about the only way to get the ball close was to run it along that ridge.  I forget who said it, but one of the announcers said he didn't expect to see any eagles today.   

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Patrick,

You're right of course - however a nice running chipped 3rd shot from the fairway would fit quite well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

There are a number of holes where a running approach, taking advantage of the slopes/contours around and on the green can feed to select hole locations.

I think that's another genius of the design.

And, part of what makes playing the course so much fun

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

They may not have anticipated 4-irons, but they certainly thought it might be reachable in two.  I think the original point made by John is an interesting assertion.  The question is whether Cobb or others ever did work on the right side of the green creating the contours that allowed for what we saw today.

These are Dr. MacKenzie's words:

No. 2 - Par 5 —Regular Distance 480 Yards —Championship 510 (575).

Then:  An interesting three-shot hole down hill. Each shot will need to be placed with great accuracy. On the other hand, it will be quite possible for a powerful and accurate player to reach the green in two shots.


[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

You have to understand the terrain the hole sits on to understand the lies a player would encounter, which in turn influence the shot they have to play in order to reach the green in two, or to position themselves in the ideal location for the third shot, which is hole location dependent.

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Wasn't arguing your point, just looking to expand the conversation.

For the hole position we saw today, it seemed like most players who were in range were trying to fade (righties) their second into the front of the green and hoping it would run out.  If this missed short and right, they took there chances on an up and down for birdie.

Since you've been there, for the player that is not in range, where do you think the best spot to lay up would be?  Without knowing the contours, I'd guess it would be on the left side of the fairway opening up the angle of the green to that back right position.  Thoughts?

Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Dan Wexler wrote about the different pin positions, the angles for going at the green in two and the impact of the fairway bunker:

"The range of shotmaking skills originally required for the better player to reach the second green in two was enviable: a drawn tee ball (to carry/avoid the bunker, and follow the general turn of the fairway), then a long, controlled fade to the narrow, left-to-right bending green. Todays re-shaped putting surface, however, is a bit more neutral in which angle of approach it favors, varying daily with potential far-left and far-right pin placements. On the one hand, this can be viewed as more strategic that is, one might be inclined to flirt with the fairway bunker to open up a back-left pin one day, then skirt the treeline to get a better angle on a back-right target the next. But on a hole of this size, where distance off the tee is a primary consideration, the fact that the bunker guards the longer (and thus generally less-desirable) right side seems a bit out-of-balance."

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

I think one of the problems today, is the lack of movement with the ball, particularly the drive.

There was a time when you had to shape a shot to take advantage of the terrain and architectural features.
To a degree, I think that's been lost due to the combination of distance/launch angle and straighter ball flight.

In the mid-60's I played with a fellow from North Carolina in the North-South Amateur.
I forget his name, but, he hit a low pronounced draw, maybe even a hook, and it ran forever.
I thought, maybe, I had learned something new, then, two days later, I saw Moss Beecroft and others fly it over the right side bunker on # 18 at # 2, and realized that what I had just learned, had just been made obsolete.

I think one of the reasons that ANGC has remained relevant over the years as a test for the best golfers in the world has a lot to do with the topography and the amorphic nature of the architecture, not to mention the greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()