[Patrick_Mucci]

So, no one thinks that the telecast will influence green committees and boards ?  ?  ?

I do, but I also think that it has been happening a long time.


Yes, it has, and local clubs seem influenced by what they see on TV.

Is it unreasonable to think that those narrow ribbon like fairways will appeal to local clubs hoping to make their course a notch above it's peers ?

Kyle, that's certainly a supporting/supplemental argument for narrowing fairways, but, where does it end, at 10 yards ?

[Joel_Stewart]

So, no one thinks that the telecast will influence green committees and boards ?  ?  ?

Yes, to do the opposite.  Any green committee or superintendent that does what Olympic does would be fools.

[Jason Thurman]

What tournament are you guys watching with this super-thick rough you're talking about? I think we're regurgitating our annual US Open "thick rough" complaining without analyzing what we're actually seeing. I've not seen a single player have to chip out sideways, and almost every shot from the rough I've seen has gotten reasonably close to the green. I've also only seen trees really limit play on the bunker shot the high schooler hit yesterday, and apparently even then they weren't THAT limiting.

Regarding the fairways specifically, I've literally never heard another golfer describe US Open fairways as anything but "crazy/ridiculously narrow" and I've literally never heard anyone say they'd like to play a setup like that more than one time in their life. I've also never met anyone who wants to play out of typical Winged Foot US Open rough. The weekly tournaments on the PGA Tour have far more impact on people's conditioning expectations than the US Open. Hell, most people I know complain about the US Open setup as "too over the top."

The golfers I know complain when a green is slow, but also when it won't hold a long iron and when you can't land balls on the green. They hate fairways that run balls into the rough. I know literally nobody who wants US Open conditions on a more-than-once-a-year basis. Maybe we just hang out in different circles, but the US Open's influence on conditioning seems overstated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What tournament are you guys watching with this super-thick rough you're talking about? I think we're regurgitating our annual US Open "thick rough" complaining without analyzing what we're actually seeing. I've not seen a single player have to chip out sideways, and almost every shot from the rough I've seen has gotten reasonably close to the green. I've also only seen trees really limit play on the bunker shot the high schooler hit yesterday, and apparently even then they weren't THAT limiting.

Jud,

They tend to televise the good to great shots, not the bad one's

Regarding the fairways specifically, I've literally never heard another golfer describe US Open fairways as anything but "crazy/ridiculously narrow" and I've literally never heard anyone say they'd like to play a setup like that more than one time in their life. I've also never met anyone who wants to play out of typical Winged Foot US Open rough. The weekly tournaments on the PGA Tour have far more impact on people's conditioning expectations than the US Open. Hell, most people I know complain about the US Open setup as "too over the top."

If the setup was so objectionable the gang mowers would be fast at work Monday morning.
But quite the opposite is true.

Golfers and golf clubs are a strange breed where difficulty bordering on torture is embraced, not rejected.

As was stated, difficulty is often equated with quality in terms of architecture.

The golfers I know complain when a green is slow, but also when it won't hold a long iron and when you can't land balls on the green. They hate fairways that run balls into the rough. I know literally nobody who wants US Open conditions on a more-than-once-a-year basis. Maybe we just hang out in different circles, but the US Open's influence on conditioning seems overstated.

The culture of some clubs is that they take pride in their difficulty.
For years, when Red was the Super, Plainfield was one of those clubs.

The narrowing of fairways at Oakmont and Baltusrol might be exhibit "A"

Many clubs NEVER restored thei fairways to their original widths, Merion and Shinnecock amongst them

[Jason Thurman]

Pat,

I'm not Jud.

You're right that good shots tend to be televised, but we saw almost every shot from the top 15 on the leaderboard yesterday. I saw some awful shots from Hossler, Thompson, and many others, but never saw anyone in the top 15 forced to pitch out.

Did you actually see players pitching out, or are you just assuming they did based on past Opens? Can you name 10 instances when a player pitched out of the rough when hitting from a position within 10 yards of the fairway?

I have no doubt Olympic will preserve these lines for a month or two at a minimum. I'd love to play a US Open setup once or twice if I were a member. But your question is whether it's bad for golf. Even if it's bad for Olympic, I don't see one course preserving US Open mowing lines as "bad for golf."

Of course you're right about many clubs priding themselves on difficulty. But they were doing that before this week, so it's hard to see how it's the fault of the "narrow, ribbon like fairways at Olympic." It's also hard for me to believe that the 100 or so clubs around the country that seek the most difficult test possible are "bad for golf." Perhaps you can explain why clubs maintaining their courses at a difficulty their members desire is "bad for golf"?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

It became obvious that some should have pitched out, including the leader at the time, Beau.

He didn't and it resulted in a double

[Jason Thurman]

Pat,

Olympic doesn't have fairway bunkers. Had a handful of players foolishly attempted to reach greens from fairway bunkers and failed, we'd call Olympic "strategic."

I guess I'm still lost on why a stern and demanding US Open setup might be "bad for golf." I don't see any correlation between a high schooler hitting a bad shot from deep rough after a bad tee shot on a Friday afternoon and the game's demise.

[Mark Johnson]

I think the Olympic setup is great for championship golf.    More setups like this will neutralize equipment advances while maintaining the challenge

I much more prefer this type of setup to the emerging 8000 yard course

[David Harshbarger]

I recently played Saratoga Lake here in the Albany area, and the width of the fairways was laughable.  This course is cut out of a woodland, and on many holes, the fairway takes up less than half of the playing corridor.  This is a public course, no less, and I was spending a decent amount of time looking for relatively well hit drives. 

I also recently played the Edison Clun, also in the Albany area, and it too had narrow fairways in wide playing corridors.  The number 1 handicap on the front nine was notable for the narrow fairway running straight to the tree across a landing area that canted downhill,  right to left.  The reward for a well struck ball, it kicks left into rough?  I don't think Emmet was thinking that's the way the hole should play.

So, yes, it's a bad model to take home.  Unfortunately, what happens at the US Open doesn't stay at the US Open.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I wonder what the real culprit is? US Open conditions, or just that a club wants fairways maintained like putting greens and the cost to maintain them at that level rises by a considerable amount. Next thing you know the fairway becomes 20 or 30% more narrow than it originally was to make up for the extra money spent on conditioning.

It's a vicious cycle.   

[Doug Siebert]

Kyle,

I'm all for less acreage maintained at fairway height, especially given how tightly cut and stressed-out we prefer fairways nowadays. But if there's only going to be a 20-30 yards wide swath of the tightest cut, much of the less-maintained areas needs to be at least whacked back to under an inch or so. It's the combination of ribbon-like "fairway" bordered by rough so thick and tall that every foursome is searching for a couple of balls on every hole and the default shot from even a yard or two off the "fairway" is a wedge. That turns the game into a slog.

For every day play, perhaps someone could try a different paradigm. The largest area could be turf that stays in the 1/2"-3/4" range, give or take, and is not expected to be lush, bright green and perfect every day. Then outside that area you put "rough" that's however penal you want it but is kept well away from the main line of play. And on the center line of each hole you could have an arbitrarily narrow strip of very tight, perfect turf that's a bonus for the occasional shot struck literally right down the middle.  Heck, make it as narrow as a walking corridor if you like as it is supposed to be just a target offering an occasional bonus (like in a minor-league ballpark where a home run that hit's a bullseye on a sign in the center field wins a car or something).

A lot of hackers love a half inch of grass under their ball anyway but presumably the better players would find the "default cut" to offer some uncertainty for controlling the flight of the ball.

Sounds like you are advocating for having a much larger "first cut" than the typical mower width strip on either end of the fairway.  If we're going to have narrow fairways whether we like it or not, if for financial reasons than no other, let's remember what "rough" is supposed to be.  Have a large "first cut" transitional area that may be mowed almost down to fairway height at times, and other times may be 2-3 inches and play more like "rough" on an average course.

To avoid having the entire course become easy if you come out the day after the first cut has been mowed and hard if its been a few days and its really growing, you could adopt a staggered mowing schedule, and mow holes 1-6's first cut on Monday, then 7-12 Wednesday, then 13-18 Friday, or something like that.  So you always get some holes that are "easier" and some that are "harder" no matter when you play.

For the real rough beyond that, just try to keep it reasonable enough that balls can be found.  If its thick, mow it more often, at least where people hit, but if its thin it can be left to grow pretty tall.  Just don't fertilize the damn stuff, it doesn't need to be green and people who hit into the rough shouldn't complain about a cuppy bare lie surround by grass - its rough, that's supposed to happen!

[Doug Siebert]

Jason,

It became obvious that some should have pitched out, including the leader at the time, Beau.

He didn't and it resulted in a double

Beau didn't hit into regular rough, he hit into some unmaintained field grass on a hillside under a tree.  He was in full self destruct mode at the time once he realized he alone atop the leaderboard, so his mind wasn't working, and without a professional caddy, didn't have someone to talk him down off the ledge.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Doug,

It's easy for the wheels to come off, and you're right, a great caddy might have avoided a mini-disaster.

[Matthew Mollica]

Pat or others,

When did the USGA first undertake the regular mode of US Open course presentation we now regularly see?
Set fairway width and uniform thick rough etc.

Was it Sandy Tatum who first instigated it?

Matthew

[Niall C]

Patrick

FWIW I think on the contrary. In this instance they have tested the players beyond the single question of can you hit the ball straight.

The speed of the fairways as well as their width in a roundabout kind of way have brought strategy and shotmaking back into the game. I mean, the players are trying to shape their shots to hold the fairway. They have also seen them employ different strategies in what they do off the tee ie. whether to hit a relatively short shot followed by a longer second played off the fairway or whether to risk hitting a longer club off the tee to a narrower part of the fairway with the possible benefit of a shorter shot in from the short stuff.

Its been fascinating seeing someone like McDowell with an obvious shape of shot, trying to shape it the other way.

Niall   

[Doug Siebert]

Doug,

It's easy for the wheels to come off, and you're right, a great caddy might have avoided a mini-disaster.

I'm amazed at how that kid did yesterday, bouncing back with a birdie after every bogey.  If he does well again today, I'd love to see the Open give him a special exemption.  He deserves a trip over there!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

FWIW I think on the contrary. In this instance they have tested the players beyond the single question of can you hit the ball straight.

The speed of the fairways as well as their width in a roundabout kind of way have brought strategy and shotmaking back into the game. I mean, the players are trying to shape their shots to hold the fairway. They have also seen them employ different strategies in what they do off the tee ie. whether to hit a relatively short shot followed by a longer second played off the fairway or whether to risk hitting a longer club off the tee to a narrower part of the fairway with the possible benefit of a shorter shot in from the short stuff.

Its been fascinating seeing someone like McDowell with an obvious shape of shot, trying to shape it the other way.

Niall,

There's no strategy, it's the ultimate in target golf.

Hit the narrowed fairway or else.

Niall   

[Brett Morris]

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

The fairways in those photos are ridiculous.

The narrow fairways at Olympic determined the outcome at the end

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Pat you know the answer to this before you posted it. Of course no course will leave their fairways at USGA US Open widths. Now Olympic has some narrow fairways on certain holes. I actually looked at 10 and felt it looked normal but I think my eyes were playing tricks on me.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tiger,

The problem is that it's a rare situation when the hosting club returns them to their pre-Open widths and other clubs, looking up to the iconic clubs emulate their look

[Doug Siebert]

What in the world is up with that picture Brett posted?  The tiny fairway is silly, but the hole looks less than 200 yards long.  Its either a par 3 that has a fairway for some weird reason, or its a 200 yard par 4 on a Nicklaus Cayman course.

[Niall C]

Patrick

FWIW I think on the contrary. In this instance they have tested the players beyond the single question of can you hit the ball straight.

The speed of the fairways as well as their width in a roundabout kind of way have brought strategy and shotmaking back into the game. I mean, the players are trying to shape their shots to hold the fairway. They have also seen them employ different strategies in what they do off the tee ie. whether to hit a relatively short shot followed by a longer second played off the fairway or whether to risk hitting a longer club off the tee to a narrower part of the fairway with the possible benefit of a shorter shot in from the short stuff.

Its been fascinating seeing someone like McDowell with an obvious shape of shot, trying to shape it the other way.

Niall,

There's no strategy, it's the ultimate in target golf.

Hit the narrowed fairway or else.

Niall   

Patrick

Thats a puzzling comment. In a strict sense all golf is target golf unless you're just taking an ignorant swipe with absolutely no concern or aim in what you are trying to achieve.

The beauty of the Olympic course was that not only were the fairways sloping but on occasion the tees were off-set or the pro's were capable of carrying the dog-leg. That mean't they had to pick a line, length and shape of shot. They had plenty of choices. Yes, the difference between a successful shot and an unsuccessful one was quite distinct as a lot of the rough left little opportunity for recovery shots but it was the US Open for goodness sake. I thought it was a tremendous test of golf.

Frankly I'm surprised, I wouldn't have put you down as one who needed a hairy lipped bunker to help define strategy for you.

Niall

[Brent Hutto]

So how much width is needed, presuming firm and fast conditions, in order to make distinctly aiming at "this side" versus "that side" versus "center" of the fairway practical? Keeping in mind that we're talking about aiming from 260-340 yards distance. And angle-wise on the approach we're talking distances of 180-240 yards.

I mean at some point, the goal is to be in the short grass. Period. If the shortest cut is 25 yards wide then surely the wisest strategy is just to minimize the odds of being in the rough. Because right-center-left are less than 10 yards apart, aimed at from 300 yards away. And how much angle-advantage can 15-20 yards offer on a 200+ yard approach?

Obviously if you're on the Old Course it's all about angles. You're not going to be aiming just "toward the fairway" but rather to a more strategic spot for the approach (or maybe just to give the widest possible berth to the pot bunkers.

My question is this. If the Olympic setup had offered 20 yards more width on fairways across the board, would that have brought playing angles into the equation?

[Niall C]

Brent

Possibly. Alternatively it would have been like any other tournament where each player played the same game they play week in week out ie. driver off the tee with the same shape of shot repeated.

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()