"Testing the Limits of Fairness"

« **Reply #25 on:** May 07, 2012, 01:59:18 PM »

Matthew, A hole location is normative, neither good or bad.

Jeff, Had he it higher the hole might of got in the way. I always thought the proper line of putt was the biggest borrow with the least amount of speed. He di neither of those two things.

7 at Shinney on Sunday gave up one birdie. Thats enough to prove it could be done.

« **Reply #26 on:** May 07, 2012, 03:36:31 PM »

I think it is really fascinating that this thread has a post from a guy (Scott Stambaugh) who was standing right there when they were prepping that green and the hole location for that fateful Friday round.

As to whether or not it was a bad pin and a bad set-up on that hole (why the constant remowing and rerolling if it was even remotely iffy?) that fateful day I think I would go with the opinion of the person who was responsible for it (Tom Meeks). Look him up on Google and you will see he unqualifiedly admitted it was the worst day and the worst mistake of his career in tournament golf for the USGA.

The problems on both #7 and #10 at Shinnecock in 2004 was not the same as Olympic. The pin location wasn't the primary problem on those two holes; the problem was those two greens were so FIRM very few could keep an approach shot on them. I remember watching Mickelson hit a 60% wedge a mile in the air right into the middle of the 10th and the ball still bounced over the green leaving him a downhill chip.

I love the remark of Mike Davis on that Sunday morning before play began at the 2004 Open at Shinnecock (and before he became the USGA Competitions Director). It was a little like the famous remark from Apollo 13 to NASA in Houston. He got on the radio before play began and said: "WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!"

News:

Adam Clayman

Re: "Testing the Limits of Fairness"

TEPaul

Re: "Testing the Limits of Fairness"

An Error Has Occurred!