13th at Olympic

[jeffwarne]

If they jumped over to SFGC, simply played the back tees,and had no time for a USGA setup staff and years of preparation, would they get a "fluke" winner?

Yes they would, with a winning score of 18 under par ...

Someone like Fleck or Simpson perhaps  
 although interestingly Fleck nipped Hogan, Casper(a star in his own right) nipped Palmer,Simpson (a solid career and an even more solid guy)nipped Watson,so the best players of their era were quite close
and it'd be 14 under because one of the par 5's would be made a par 4  

[Sam Morrow]

If they jumped over to SFGC, simply played the back tees,and had no time for a USGA setup staff and years of preparation, would they get a "fluke" winner?

Yes they would, with a winning score of 18 under par ...

Someone like Fleck or Simpson perhaps
and it'd be 14 under because one of the par 5's would be made a par 4

I like how people talk about the fluke winners at Olympic, Janzen and Casper each won their second Open and when Simpson won he had a victory a few months before that.

[Howard Riefs]

Even better than the stills and aerials...
Geoff Shackleford deftly analyzes the design issues in these videos:

Tee shot issues
http://t.co/xIw7K7Av

Recovery shots right of green likely will not be able to be played at the hole 
http://t.co/lFbMXXmL

Shaved down area left of green sends balls toward the water hazard
http://t.co/2KhrPG0S

[jeffwarne]

If they jumped over to SFGC, simply played the back tees,and had no time for a USGA setup staff and years of preparation, would they get a "fluke" winner?

Yes they would, with a winning score of 18 under par ...

Someone like Fleck or Simpson perhaps
and it'd be 14 under because one of the par 5's would be made a par 4

I like how people talk about the fluke winners at Olympic, Janzen and Casper each won their second Open and when Simpson won he had a victory a few months before that.

Sam see post edit which crossed above
Janzen won US Open twice and Casper was one of the Big 3 in the 60's.
Although I'm posting tongue in cheek, I'm just not sure the Open "setup" identifies great players any better than any other event, but it certainly requires a lot of effort and some might say bastardization of classic courses.

[Sam Morrow]

If they jumped over to SFGC, simply played the back tees,and had no time for a USGA setup staff and years of preparation, would they get a "fluke" winner?

Yes they would, with a winning score of 18 under par ...

Someone like Fleck or Simpson perhaps
and it'd be 14 under because one of the par 5's would be made a par 4

I like how people talk about the fluke winners at Olympic, Janzen and Casper each won their second Open and when Simpson won he had a victory a few months before that.

Sam see post above
Janzen won US Open twice and Casper was one of the Big 3 in the 60's.
Although I'm posting tongue in cheek, I'm just not sure the Open "setup" identifies great players any better than any other event, but it certainly requires a lot of effort and some might say bastardization of classic courses.

The set up identifies the guy who shoots the lowest score for the week, that's all that matters.

[jeffwarne]

If they jumped over to SFGC, simply played the back tees,and had no time for a USGA setup staff and years of preparation, would they get a "fluke" winner?

Yes they would, with a winning score of 18 under par ...

Someone like Fleck or Simpson perhaps
and it'd be 14 under because one of the par 5's would be made a par 4

I like how people talk about the fluke winners at Olympic, Janzen and Casper each won their second Open and when Simpson won he had a victory a few months before that.

Sam see post above
Janzen won US Open twice and Casper was one of the Big 3 in the 60's.
Although I'm posting tongue in cheek, I'm just not sure the Open "setup" identifies great players any better than any other event, but it certainly requires a lot of effort and some might say bastardization of classic courses.

The set up identifies the guy who shoots the lowest score for the week, that's all that matters.

Wouldn't SFGC do that?
or anywhere else without all the tinkering?

[David_Tepper]

"Wouldn't SFGC do that?
or anywhere else without all the tinkering?"

Jeff W. -

The OC Lake Course could certainly suffice as a good test "without all the tinkering." The scores would just be lower, which is OK with me.

DT
tcmnav@aol.com 

[Sam Morrow]

If they jumped over to SFGC, simply played the back tees,and had no time for a USGA setup staff and years of preparation, would they get a "fluke" winner?

Yes they would, with a winning score of 18 under par ...

Someone like Fleck or Simpson perhaps
and it'd be 14 under because one of the par 5's would be made a par 4

I like how people talk about the fluke winners at Olympic, Janzen and Casper each won their second Open and when Simpson won he had a victory a few months before that.

Sam see post above
Janzen won US Open twice and Casper was one of the Big 3 in the 60's.
Although I'm posting tongue in cheek, I'm just not sure the Open "setup" identifies great players any better than any other event, but it certainly requires a lot of effort and some might say bastardization of classic courses.

The set up identifies the guy who shoots the lowest score for the week, that's all that matters.

Wouldn't SFGC do that?
or anywhere else without all the tinkering?

Actually any course would. If everyone is playing the same course then it will identify the best player.

[Ben Sims]

I am being serious when I ask this...why hasn't the USGA green section, host clubs, etc., invested the requisite amount of time in the relationship between height of cut/slope/speed on "chipping areas" like they have green surfaces?

It seems that in recent years we have gone overboard in how protective green's staffs are over pinnable slope/speed.  However, if the area in question isn't green's surface, no slope/speed relationship is too penal or outlandish.  A ball freely rolling on a 4% slope when off the green may be a bit much.

[jeffwarne]

I am being serious when I ask this...why hasn't the USGA green section, host clubs, etc., invested the requisite amount of time in the relationship between height of cut/slope/speed on "chipping areas" like they have green surfaces?

It seems that in recent years we have gone overboard in how protective green's staffs are over pinnable slope/speed.  However, if the area in question isn't green's surface, no slope/speed relationship is too penal or outlandish.  A ball freely rolling on a 4% slope when off the green may be a bit much.

They're doing a five year study to determine if cutting and rolling can make an area too fast

[Lance Rieber]

Mike
I have played Olympic only once but remember the general slope on 17 being pretty severe the length of the hole.  I didn't realize there was t gallery allowed to the right of 17 and left of 18.  Where would a ball stop if it landed just short of the right green side bunker?   Would it roll right or back and how far?  Thanks

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I have not seen this live but as it is presented it appears to be a mistake.

[jeffwarne]

"Wouldn't SFGC do that?
or anywhere else without all the tinkering?"

Jeff W. -

The OC Lake Course could certainly suffice as a good test "without all the tinkering." The scores would just be lower, which is OK with me.

DT
tcmnav@aol.com  

Agreed David.
I wasn't actually suggesting a different site(SFGC) just that they use the one they've got(Olympic) without creating a new one
We all do have to justify our existence however--perhaps allowing the equipment arms race to escalate serves this purpose well

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

They have let the fringe grow for 2 days.  It is not that severe now.

[Lance Rieber]

Your correct Tiger. Seems they slowed it down.