Mike Davis' US Open setups: you like them?

[PThomas]

It seems, GENERALLY SPEAKING, that they get high marks from many/most (which may perhaps be inflated due to the last one at Shinnecock, which was pre-Mike).....yet , at least here on GCA, seems like a fair number of people grumbling about this year's in particular

your thoughts?

[jeffwarne]

It seems, GENERALLY SPEAKING, that they get high marks from many/most (which may perhaps be inflated due to the last one at Shinnecock, which was pre-Mike).....yet , at least here on GCA, seems like a fair number of people grumbling about this year's in particular

your thoughts?

i thought they played The Open at Olympic.(and previous ones at Shinnecock, Pebble, etc.)
Not sure we should even know the name of the guy who sets it up.......

[Jason Thurman]

Generally, I think the Davis team does a good job. They've been hampered in recent years by weather, and to be fair, the greens at Pebble and Torrey were ridiculous.

Given the perfect weather this week though, I thought Olympic's setup was fantastic.

[Mark Johnson]

my take

course set up:  A-  (only real complaint is that long par 3 on the back -- 15 i think-- dont think you should have to work the ball that much on a par-3.

Pin positions:  B-  (A few too gimmicky for me).

What I love about the setup is that it is proof that you can have a challenging course at under 7000 yards.  (I believe sunday's round was 6970 yards.)

[Mike Hendren]

Davis should stick to administration and let the architects stick to design.  Somebody needs to give the guy a sandbox and let him play in it.

Bogey

[TEPaul]

I don't just like them, I love them. I think Mike Davis is without question the most creative, imaginative, benefical and successful US Open set-up mind the USGA has ever had and perhaps by up to about ten or eleven miles!

The last bit I love about Davis is he is so smart and he just loves and understands all architecture and particularly old architecture but he knows not to go looking for a total consensus of opinion on anything----and that there always were, are and always will be people who disagree with anything or even everything. I think he understands and completely embraces that beautiful mantra of Macdonald and definitely Mackenzie that the real goal is to produce a form of "benefical controversy," the flip side of which is---if people across the board tend to agree that something is satisfactory there just must be something about it that is deadly dull (the actual words of C.B. Macdonald on architecture generally and bunkers in particular).

I think he gave a few really great interviews out there at the US Open too. I particularly liked the one where he was sitting between the commentators in the main booth (Johnny Miller and the other guy).

On that note, he said something that I believe went right over the heads of perhaps 99.9% of the listeners. It was alluding to the subject of handicapping and perhaps handicap posting. You heard it here first but look for at least one aspect of the USGA Handicap "System" to change in the coming years!   

[Dan_Callahan]

I wanted to like the setup at Olympic. But those ridiculously narrow fairways don't do it for me. Give me St. Andrews or even Augusta over that any day.

[Adam Clayman]

I don't just like them, I love them. I think Mike Davis is without question the most creative, imaginative, benefical and successful US Open set-up mind the USGA has ever had and perhaps by up to about ten or eleven miles!

The last bit I love about Davis is he is so smart and he just loves and understands all architecture and particularly old architecture but he knows not to go looking for a total consensus of opinion on anything----and that there always were, are and always will be people who disagree with anything or even everything. I think he understands and completely embraces that beautiful mantra of Macdonald and definitely Mackenzie that the real goal is to produce a form of "benefical controversy," the flip side of which is---if people across the board tend to agree that something is satisfactory there just must be something about it that is deadly dull (the actual words of C.B. Macdonald on architecture generally and bunkers in particular).

The next two Opens will highlight his understanding. Particularly the 2014 at Pinehurst. It's low mowed turf, will provide the most proper type of golf. Golf, where the ground, and the elements are the ultimate deciders on what constitutes a fine shot.  To some extent, Olympic showed it's true character this weekend. mostly in the low mowed areas, but also in the hairy rough, because it was firm.

[Mike Hendren]

We now have a new template hole:  The Davis Truncated Short.   He did it at Bethpage and now at Olympic with the 107 yards par three to a tight front pin.  Garanimals architecture.  He's quite the trickster.

Is he in charge of set-up or manipulation?

Radically changing hole distances and introducing fairway runoffs near greens implied that Olympic was somehow deficient.  I don't buy it.

I doubt the stewards of America's great courses will  meeting to engage Davis' services in tweaking their courses. 

Bogey

[Phil McDade]

Davis should stick to administration and let the architects stick to design.  Somebody needs to give the guy a sandbox and let him play in it.

Bogey

Bogey:

Come to Erin Hills! For that's what that course has become for Davis.

I tend to agree with you on the set-up of recent Opens. Congressional was poor, as was the most recent at Bethpage Black, as the set-up allowed far too many players to go far too low too often in a tournament that -- by historical standards, and unique among the majors -- has always been about being the toughest four rounds a golfer will encounter during the year. Although par was protected much better at Torrey Pines and Pebble Beach, and I liked much of what I saw at Olympic, there are still some -- as you note -- gimmicky elements of Davis'  set-up philosophy, as if he enjoys pulling a "gotcha" on the players every now and then.

It is a tough standard. Sometimes really compelling golf in majors occurs on courses and set-ups with no real architectural merit -- witness the 2000 PGA at Valhalla. But the USGA does this just once a year, and I'd like to see less emphasis on goofy tactics like a sub-110 yd par 3. I'd give Davis a B this year (I thought Pebble B and Oakmont in recent years were A's, Torrey Pines a B, BBlack a D, and Congressional an F, because of Davis' dishonesty about the set-up), and agree with Adam that Pinehurst will be a really interesting test for Davis re. the set-up.

[George Freeman]

Congressional was poor, as was the most recent at Bethpage Black, as the set-up allowed far too many players to go far too low too often in a tournament that -- by historical standards, and unique among the majors -- has always been about being the toughest four rounds a golfer will encounter during the year.

Phil - if you recall, both the Bethpage and Congressional Opens got hammered by severe rain before and during the tournaments.  Their softness was the main reason for the low scores, not the set up.  The weather is the one thing nobody can control - no way to get the water out of the course...

I for one love the Mike Davis era.  The impetus on F&F, graduated rough, shaved areas near greens, alternate tees, drivable par 4s, and reachable par 5s (by the whole field) are all great additions to the US Open that I don't think were used often before Mike.  What I really like is introduction of risk and reward, which is a direct result of the things previously mentioned.  And he has managed to do this all the while keeping it the hardest test in golf (when the weather cooperates).  The US Open is now the ultimate test of golf, not the ultimate test of driving your golf ball in the fairway.

Nothing worse than watching a guy miss a fairway by 4 yards and have to hack out with an 8-iron, ala the US Opens of my youth (I'm 27).  Graduated rough creates risk/reward and options.  Do you take a chance on a flier lie or a hosel grabber to get on or near the green in two?  Or do you take your medicine like Woods did twice on #1 this weekend?  

Re: the shaved areas.  I'm not sure how you could argue against them.  The players know they're there, they know where they can't miss, they know if they want to get it close to certain pins they will have to challenge those areas with a miss resulting in a likely bogey.  This goes back to that old argument: "nobody would be bitching if those shaved collection areas were water" which I agree with and which is a sad truth...  Not to mention all the options of how those recovery shots can be played when compared to a basic hack sand wedge out of thick green side rough.

Drive-able par 4s/reachable par 5s (by the entire field):  I have no idea why anyone would argue against these.  Especially when the winning score of the tournament was still over par...

Alternate tees:  Bogey - I really can't understand your disdain for this...  Variety is the spice of life!  You have a problem with a 100 yard par 3 that requires a perfectly executed wedge (or less) in order to get within 10 feet?  I don't understand how variety is a bad thing.  I'd much rather see that then four par 3s of 190, 200, 210, and 235.  One or two of that length?  Sure!  But I don't need to see four long iron/hybrid par 3s.  Again, especially when the winning score was over par.

The other thing to take into consideration is the choice of venues since Davis has taken over (I have no idea how much say he has in this, but I would guess it is meaningful).  Also, not sure how far out they were scheduled at the time he took over, but the US Open sites on the docket are phenomenal in my opinion (working backwards):

2019 - Pebble
2018 - Shinnecock
2017 - Erin Hills (all Davis?)
2016 - Oakmont
2015 - Chambers Bay (all Davis?)
2014 - Pinehurst #2
2013 - Merion

Note that there are no duds in that lineup...

[Phil McDade]

Congressional was poor, as was the most recent at Bethpage Black, as the set-up allowed far too many players to go far too low too often in a tournament that -- by historical standards, and unique among the majors -- has always been about being the toughest four rounds a golfer will encounter during the year.

Phil - if you recall, both the Bethpage and Congressional Opens got hammered by severe rain before and during the tournaments.  Their softness was the main reason for the low scores, not the set up.  The weather is the one thing nobody can control - no way to get the water out of the course...

George:

I disagree -- I'd argue weather was a factor, but that Davis' set-up also contributed to record low-scoring at both courses. See these threads:

Congressional:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,48635.0.html (and reply #60 for Davis' dishonesty about the course set-up)

Bethpage:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40214.0.html
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,40234.0.html

[George Freeman]

Phil - I think the take away is that Congressional (and Bethpage) did not play as Mike Davis and the USGA had hoped/planned for.  The cause of this was the weather, and perhaps a miscalculation at Congressional.

You can't have your cake and eat it too...  Davis's setup methodology is pretty weather dependent (the one weakness?).  You can't have hack-it-out rough combined with the super F&F conditions that Davis covets.  The F&F and graduated rough go hand in hand.  The problem is he has to set the rough mowing patterns well in advance of knowing what the weather is going to do.

When the weather cooperates you get great Opens like Oakmont, Torrey, Pebble and Olympic.  When it doesn't, you get Bethpage and Congressional.  Besides, the winning score at BB was only -4.  The low scores at Congressional, IMO, were a combo of the softness (weather) and a freak performance by Rory (second place was -8).

[Terry Lavin]

I think Mike Davis does a good job and the longer he does it, the more he resembles his mentor, Tom Meeks, who liked a tough setup.  He gets close to the edge sometimes, but this is the US Open, not the Wells Fargo.  I wasn't crazy about the setup at Pebble, because they damn near lost the golf course which was overly crunchy and I wasn't crazy about the fairway narrowing at Olympic, but in the end analysis, I think you have to compliment the guy because he had a demanding test of golf of the best in the game for one of the most prized trophies in golf.  He should also get kudos for the flexible approach that he takes to setup in terms of making a hole very long one day and very short the next.  This provides some visual interest for the viewing public and throws a bit of confusion into the player's head.  Nothing wrong with that.

[Tom_Doak]

In general, I like what Mike Davis has done for the Open setups, at least as far as moving the tees up or back to keep players off guard.  The idea that there is one perfect teeing ground for them is wrong ... each player is different, so a particular tee placement inevitably favors one player over another, and moving them around creates more equity [and requires more tactical thought].

There should be limits on that, though, and I don't know if those limits were exceeded this year.  Was it possible to hit the fairway at the 16th on Sunday without playing a controlled draw to a narrow fairway?  If not, I think that would be an example of crossing the line, especially considering the thickness of the rough at Olympic.  It's one thing to leave a player out of position if he can't hit a draw, but it's another to hand him an automatic bogey.

I am also of the belief that they are over-doing the creation of chipping areas, and putting them in more and more awkward locations simply to make the golf course harder [and draw attention to the setup].  I can't imagine any designer putting in a chipping area to the left of #16 where they had it this week ... it just didn't fit in at all.  Likewise, the chipping areas that run your ball out to a hazard are a gimmick.

In short, everything in moderation, and I think that Mike is ratcheting up his tweaks every year to the point where it's no longer moderation.  Machiavelli had a good line about that, didn't he?

[Jason Topp]

I am a fan and have seen it trickle down to competitions on a local level.  I have now played front tees on short par fours several times in competitive rounds. 

I also think he should deserve credit for erring on the side of a playable course rather than letting the course get away from him.  Despite its difficulty, it appeared Olympic got softer each round rather than more crispy.

[Phil McDade]

George:

The Bethpage Open had record-low scoring the first two days, and then the weather moved through, the course dried out, and Davis started tucking a bunch of pins on the weekend. I would've preferred uniformly difficult conditions throughout the tournament, and not just on the weekend. I'd argue the odd set-up of the Black contributed to a uniformly dull leaderboard.

2nd place of -8, and a winning score of -16, ala Congressional, is not a US Open. See reply #60 in the Congressional thread for not having it both ways; Davis argued the weather leading up to the tournament was ideal for setting up the course, then blamed it afterward

Yes, I'd agree, his course set-ups tend to be weather-dependent. He should try to avoid having his course set-ups for the US Open be that way. He only has to do this once a year. The USGA protected par at the US Open in all manner of weather, for decades, before Davis started tinkering with course set-ups (and in all honesty, I've only severely criticized his set-ups at Bethpage and Congressional).

Again -- I like much of what I saw at Olympic, although it appears the course is of the type that it's fairly easy to narrow the fairways, utilize existing trees, and firm up the greens to produce tough conditions. I think Davis -- assuming he's still doing this -- will be quite tested at Pinehurst, Chambers Bay and Erin Hills in terms of establishing difficult scoring conditions at courses meant to play fairly firm, fast and with width.

[Terry Lavin]

I am also of the belief that they are over-doing the creation of chipping areas, and putting them in more and more awkward locations simply to make the golf course harder [and draw attention to the setup].  I can't imagine any designer putting in a chipping area to the left of #16 where they had it this week ... it just didn't fit in at all.  Likewise, the chipping areas that run your ball out to a hazard are a gimmick.

I'll echo this comment.  Trying to impose Pinehurst-like chipping areas on any course that hosts an open seems wrongheaded to me.

[jeffwarne]

In general, I like what Mike Davis has done for the Open setups, at least as far as moving the tees up or back to keep players off guard.  The idea that there is one perfect teeing ground for them is wrong ... each player is different, so a particular tee placement inevitably favors one player over another, and moving them around creates more equity [and requires more tactical thought].

There should be limits on that, though, and I don't know if those limits were exceeded this year.  Was it possible to hit the fairway at the 16th on Sunday without playing a controlled draw to a narrow fairway?  If not, I think that would be an example of crossing the line, especially considering the thickness of the rough at Olympic.  It's one thing to leave a player out of position if he can't hit a draw, but it's another to hand him an automatic bogey.

I am also of the belief that they are over-doing the creation of chipping areas, and putting them in more and more awkward locations simply to make the golf course harder [and draw attention to the setup].  I can't imagine any designer putting in a chipping area to the left of #16 where they had it this week ... it just didn't fit in at all.  Likewise, the chipping areas that run your ball out to a hazard are a gimmick.

In short, everything in moderation, and I think that Mike is ratcheting up his tweaks every year to the point where it's no longer moderation.  Machiavelli had a good line about that, didn't he?

+1
the chipping area just left on #1 (532 par 4 the last day) ran down to bushes and electrical cords everywhere.
a 264 par 4 where everyone goes for it (nearly all with fairway woods) is not thought provoking, just a tough 3.
Did anyone decide to lay back 100 yards on purpose?
How about a longer hole that required busted driver to reach that we could see a variety of strategies?

[Tom_Doak]

The Bethpage Open had record-low scoring the first two days, and then the weather moved through, the course dried out, and Davis started tucking a bunch of pins on the weekend. I would've preferred uniformly difficult conditions throughout the tournament, and not just on the weekend.

From a practical standpoint, they have to do it that way.  On Thursday and Friday, the overriding goal is just to get 156 players to finish before dark, so they save the really testy stuff for the weekend.

[Phil McDade]

The Bethpage Open had record-low scoring the first two days, and then the weather moved through, the course dried out, and Davis started tucking a bunch of pins on the weekend. I would've preferred uniformly difficult conditions throughout the tournament, and not just on the weekend.

From a practical standpoint, they have to do it that way.  On Thursday and Friday, the overriding goal is just to get 156 players to finish before dark, so they save the really testy stuff for the weekend.

The evidence from this year's Open would suggest that's not the case. Thursday saw 6 rounds under par, and 8 at E par -- the toughest day of the tournament. Friday: 6 under par, 15 at E par; Saturday: 11 under par, 7 at E par. Sunday: 7 under par, 9 at E par.

In summary: First two days: 12 rounds under par, 23 at even par. Last two days: 18 rounds under par, 16 at even par. The first two days played arguably tougher than the last two days.

One of the things I liked about this year's Open set-up is that scoring conditions appeared to be kept uniformly difficult for each of the four days.

[Jason Thurman]

Again -- I like much of what I saw at Olympic, although it appears the course is of the type that it's fairly easy to narrow the fairways, utilize existing trees, and firm up the greens to produce tough conditions. I think Davis -- assuming he's still doing this -- will be quite tested at Pinehurst, Chambers Bay and Erin Hills in terms of establishing difficult scoring conditions at courses meant to play fairly firm, fast and with width.

Erin Hills can play over 8000 yards and is usually very windy. It won't be hard to defend par there. Having played both, it's much tougher than Pebble Beach even with wider fairways and corridors.

It's also wall-to-wall fescue since the most recent renovation (aside from the greens), and I wouldn't be surprised to see it narrowed considerably in advance of the Open.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

I'll be pretty bummed if they narrow Erin Hills. What I'd like to see there: really wide fairways, no rough around the bunkers (except for a few holes like the target par 3 9th), and fescue right up against the fairways. No rough, no graduated rough -- just super-wide fairways, really penal bunkering, and fescue all around.

It's often windy at EHills, but I'm not sure you can count on it the way you can elsewhere (say, somewhere near a coastal course). If it's a day like today in Wisconsin -- humid, with swirling winds in the 20-30 mph range -- it'll be great. In fact, I'm guessing EH right now is probably exactly where the USGA wants it in five years, because we've had a very dry spring/early summer. But I've seen that course pretty wet as well.

[Jason Thurman]

I agree with the hope they don't narrow it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

They have lots of options for making the course play extra tough. It's possible that they really tighten fairways, or that they play from an extremely long set of tees. Hopefully they just defend par by putting up a sign that says "Par 4" at the tee of the 1st/14th.

As for wind, you can't count on it even at the coast, as Olympic proved. But if there's any wind at all, players will feel it at Erin Hills. It's a great course and I hope it gets the weather to play phenomenally, as I think it really deserves to shine after all the renovations and controversy. A wet Wisconsin June in 2017 would be a real bummer.

[Greg Tallman]

In general, I like what Mike Davis has done for the Open setups, at least as far as moving the tees up or back to keep players off guard.  The idea that there is one perfect teeing ground for them is wrong ... each player is different, so a particular tee placement inevitably favors one player over another, and moving them around creates more equity [and requires more tactical thought].
Absolutely. moving tees around and playing holes from very different yardages is great. Can this be done on all courses? Modern designs? Seems Olympic was the perfect course (one FW bunker on the lot) for this.

There should be limits on that, though, and I don't know if those limits were exceeded this year.  Was it possible to hit the fairway at the 16th on Sunday without playing a controlled draw to a narrow fairway?  If not, I think that would be an example of crossing the line, especially considering the thickness of the rough at Olympic.  It's one thing to leave a player out of position if he can't hit a draw, but it's another to hand him an automatic bogey.
Disagree. 1. The US open champion should be able to move the ball each way and it really surprises me that you take issue with that. 2. Was not auto-bogey, given the 100+ yards less that hole was playing guys were able to hack it out and have a short iron to the green. That said I think it took a bit more than a controlled draw to hit that fairway (depending on club selection) b ut the guys could not help themselves in trying to reach or get close in 2... Driver was not the play, and if not driver then why not something you are really going t control? FW woods and Hybrids flying all over the place on that hole. I liked the setup, proved the players cannot "gear down" that well, especially when faced with the prospect of a "reachable" par 5. They were outsmarted by Davis.

I am also of the belief that they are over-doing the creation of chipping areas, and putting them in more and more awkward locations simply to make the golf course harder [and draw attention to the setup].  I can't imagine any designer putting in a chipping area to the left of #16 where they had it this week ... it just didn't fit in at all.  Likewise, the chipping areas that run your ball out to a hazard are a gimmick.
Why? I use Els as the example. If that were Open rough over there his 4th would have been a hack and goue OR a realtively makeable chip, all determined by the lie in the thick rough. As it were he was given options and, after throwing up on himself on the first try, he nearly holed the next. Again, I am surprised to see you favor the hack and gouge from a few feet off the green versus a closely mown area, if only for the championship.

In short, everything in moderation, and I think that Mike is ratcheting up his tweaks every year to the point where it's no longer moderation.  Machiavelli had a good line about that, didn't he?