[Patrick_Mucci]

blame John Daly.

In reading all of the threads and replies on TOC, especially Bob Crosby's reply # 11 on the thread about the bunkers on # 2 at TOC, where Bob describes the best way to play # 2, I couldn't help but think of Nicklaus commenting on how Daly should play the holes when Daly was playing TOC in winning the Open.

Nicklaus was stating how Daly should play each hole based on how Nicklaus would play the holes.
Essentially, Nicklaus was out of touch with Daly's game.

In the context of TOC, has that happened to us ?

Are we out of touch with how to play each and every hole at TOC ?

And therefore out of touch with the need for proper hazard/feature creation and their placement and their juxtaposition to one another ?

Conversely, are the custodians of the game trying to compensate for their failure to control distance, vis a vis, I & B, by both lengthening courses and introducing features to thwart par on their Open venues ?

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll take a shot:

1. Daly is/was an outlier.  The R&A didn't respond to him when he won The Open, and he isn't relevant to what is being done now, IMO.  Nobody could really identify with the way he played, including Nicklaus.  Woods was/is understandable to Jack, who drove the 18th with persimmon and balata.  Daly?  Not so much.

2. For us (meaning the inhabitants of GCA as golfers rather than fans of GCA in general and TOC specifically), TOC is almost certainly fine as is.  I haven't been there since the 1980's, so I'm a little hesitant to make a declaration about how the course would play for me now.  But it was a great test when I was there, and I certainly don't hit the ball farther now than I did when I was 30ish.

However...

3. If the R&A wishes for TOC to be completely relevant to the current professional game in the years to come, these changes would seem justifiable and, to me at least, relatively unimportant historically.

Just my opinion.

[Rick Shefchik]

Patrick, your question crystallized for me what the issue really is here. I've been griping that the course is being changed to accommodate the world's best players, but I realize that it doesn't matter who it's being changed for, or whether the course is still a good test for Jack's game, John Daly's game, your game, my game or my wife's game.

I truly believe the course should be preserved in some mid-20th century form so it can be studied and referred to by future generations who want to know how golf courses evolved. It is irrelevant to me if the course becomes completely out of synch with the style of golf played in 2050 or 3050. If it is going to be continually updated to adjust to changing styles of golf, it might as well be TPC West.

I know that's not the economic model the R&A and the Links Trust have in mind; eventually, the Open Championship might not be played there anymore. But would it really be that big an economic blow to St. Andrews? I have no doubt that golfers would continue to travel there from all over the globe to play the world's oldest golf course, even if the ruling bodies continue to fail at controlling the distance issue.

One course. Traditionalists, preservationists and historians are asking that one course in the world be spared from constant renovations. I suspect that is too much to ask, but it shouldn't be.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

Rick,
Not surprisingly, your post is beautifully written, and your logic is compelling.

But I find it interesting that you use the word "evolve" in connection with TOC, but also say that we should effectively freeze that evolution at an abritrary point.  Is that consistent?  If in the future others want to study the evolution of a golf course with TOC as a template, isn't it possible that these proposed changes would be a critical piece of that evolutionary process?

Also, I take your point that TOC "evolved" in a way that other courses for the most part did not; that is central and critical to TOC's uniqueness and place in the game.  But that doesn't mean that TOC has ONLY evolved through the forces of nature, does it?  I fail to see the difference in these changes from others that have been made by human hands over the decades/centuries/eons, except that we have worldwide attention through the Internet now.

[Jeb Bearer]

The biggest problem with these changes, for me at least, is not that they represents departure from the evolutionary process, but that they seem to be misguided and risk damaging the integrity of some of the best holes. the problem with modifying the course to prevent scoring is that there will always be outliers like john Daly, and scores will continue to drop regardless if the course until the improvement in technology is checked.

[Rick Shefchik]

Rick,
Not surprisingly, your post is beautifully written, and your logic is compelling.

But I find it interesting that you use the word "evolve" in connection with TOC, but also say that we should effectively freeze that evolution at an abritrary point.  Is that consistent?  If in the future others want to study the evolution of a golf course with TOC as a template, isn't it possible that these proposed changes would be a critical piece of that evolutionary process?

Also, I take your point that TOC "evolved" in a way that other courses for the most part did not; that is central and critical to TOC's uniqueness and place in the game.  But that doesn't mean that TOC has ONLY evolved through the forces of nature, does it?  I fail to see the difference in these changes from others that have been made by human hands over the decades/centuries/eons, except that we have worldwide attention through the Internet now.

A.G., I admit that what I'm asking for is tricky. In several posts, I've tried to suggest that it is possible for golf scholars to arrive at a consensus on a point in time when The Old Course was at its most historically interesting, and make that our base point for restoration and preservation. Maybe that was 1930; maybe that was 1970. I'm guessing there wasn't a whole lot of difference between those two points.The mid-20th Century is still close enough to the course's roots to be historically valid and instructive. Anything prior to the turn of the 20th century, I would suggest, is too primitive or detached from our collective knowledge of and reverence for the course to be applicable. Practically, we can't go back to 1830, so let's pick some form of the course within the 20th Century, and say, "This is what we want future generations to know and study."

  

[Bill Brightly]

I know that's not the economic model the R&A and the Links Trust have in mind; eventually, the Open Championship might not be played there anymore. But would it really be that big an economic blow to St. Andrews? I have no doubt that golfers would continue to travel there from all over the globe to play the world's oldest golf course, even if the ruling bodies continue to fail at controlling the distance issue.

One course. Traditionalists, preservationists and historians are asking that one course in the world be spared from constant renovations. I suspect that is too much to ask, but it shouldn't be.

Rick,

When you frame the question this way, I would have to say that it IS too much to ask the people of St. Andrews and the Links Trust to forego the Open because it was not challenging enough for the pros. While many would still want to travel to St. Andrews, it would hurt if TOC was dropped from the Open rotation.

But why ask THAT question? How about this one: Is it too much to ask the R & A to acknowledge TOC's place in the history of golf course design,  leave it unaltered, play the championship there every five years,  and simply accept a low score if Mother Nature allows it?

I don't think THAT is too much to ask.

[A.G._Crockett]

Rick,
You're right; it IS tricky. 

You want future generations to "know and study" TOC.  Do you also want them to PLAY it as more than a curiosity?

The reason that so many of us have made the pilgrimmage there is because by playing the course we could connect with history.  But throughout all of that time the course continued to evolve, both through natural and man-made processes.  What you are suggesting is that WE (latest of a LOT of generations of golfers) stop the evolutionary processes at a point of OUR choosing.

In effect, you want to ask golfers 100 years from now to be interested not so much in playing the courses we played, but to STUDY the courses we played just as we played them, something that has not been asked of us.  As you would not have necessarily found the pre-1900 TOC to be evolved enough (your words were primitive and detached) why would you think that golfers in the future would find OUR version of TOC to be evolved enough for them?

Scientifically speaking, the end of evolution usually means extinction.  This has happened to golf courses as well as species, and there is utterly no reason to think TOC would be immune to extinction. 

[Rick Shefchik]

Rick,
You're right; it IS tricky. 

You want future generations to "know and study" TOC.  Do you also want them to PLAY it as more than a curiosity?

The reason that so many of us have made the pilgrimmage there is because by playing the course we could connect with history.  But throughout all of that time the course continued to evolve, both through natural and man-made processes.  What you are suggesting is that WE (latest of a LOT of generations of golfers) stop the evolutionary processes at a point of OUR choosing.

In effect, you want to ask golfers 100 years from now to be interested not so much in playing the courses we played, but to STUDY the courses we played just as we played them, something that has not been asked of us.  As you would not have necessarily found the pre-1900 TOC to be evolved enough (your words were primitive and detached) why would you think that golfers in the future would find OUR version of TOC to be evolved enough for them?

Scientifically speaking, the end of evolution usually means extinction.  This has happened to golf courses as well as species, and there is utterly no reason to think TOC would be immune to extinction. 

A.G.,

When I say we're too detached from the pre-1900 Old Course, I mean I don't think we could recreate it closely enough to make the effort worthwhile. Also, I don't think vast numbers of golfers would want to play a course that they felt was too primitive and detached from the 20th Century game.

We could recreate The Old Course of 1930; it would, in fact, be nearly as easy to do as the changes being made now. And yes, I'm picking a point in time to say, "Stop. This is a historically fascinating midpoint between the primitive links of Old Tom Morris and the game as it is played now." It may be an arbitrary point, but there is good reason to choose that point: it represents the era during which the world was finally discovering the birthplace of golf.

TOC won't become extinct if we stop modernizing it. My fear is it will become comparatively irrelevant if we don't stop.

[Peter Pallotta]

Rick, AG: good posts, but to me this thread - as with most others on this topic in recent days - ends up revolving around the belief (implied or explicit) that the Old Course is literally unique amongst the great and historic courses of the world, a one-of-a-kind golf course that has/deserves special status and consideration. That all may true, and certainly some of the finest architects of our generation and of generations past have thought so; but I keep thinking that any attempt to deal with this set of architectural changes/renovations independently of/in isolation from changes to all the other great courses in the world (past, present and future) is not only ineffectual but actually counterproductive. It is counterproductive for two reasons: 1) because as long as you frame the discussion and debate these changes in terms of greatness/uniqueness -- which are, whether we like it or not, subjective terms and judgements --  you are missing the 'objective' question and debate around the processes and procedures and rules that are/might one day be involved, e.g. who gets to decide about changes, what mechanism/checks and balances are there on this decision-maker etc. It is also counterproductive because 2) if you somehow succeed in conferring special/unique status to the Old Course, you inadvertently open the door and bless any changes to all other golf courses, now and in the future -- since if we agree to "protect" the Old Course because of its special and one-of-a-kind uniqueness and historical importance, then by definition no other course in the world whether already or still to be built will or can ever "merit" this kind of protection. Is that what we want/mean?

Peter  

[Rick Shefchik]

Rick, AG: good posts, but to me this thread - as with most others on this topic in recent days - ends up revolving around the belief (implied or explicit) that the Old Course is literally unique amongst the great and historic courses of the world, a one-of-a-kind golf course that has/deserves special status and consideration. That all may true, and certainly some of the finest architects of our generation and of generations past have thought so; but I keep thinking that any attempt to deal with this set of architectural changes/renovations independently of/in isolation from changes to all the other great courses in the world (past, present and future) is not only ineffectual but actually counterproductive. It is counterproductive for two reasons: 1) because as long as you frame the discussion and debate these changes in terms of greatness/uniqueness -- which are, whether we like it or not, subjective terms and judgements --  you are missing the 'objective' question and debate around the processes and procedures and rules that are/might one day be involved, e.g. who gets to decide about changes, what mechanism/checks and balances are there on this decision-maker etc. It is also counterproductive because 2) if you somehow succeed in conferring special/unique status to the Old Course, you inadvertently open the door and bless any changes to all other golf courses, now and in the future -- since if we agree to "protect" the Old Course because of its special and one-of-a-kind uniqueness and historical importance, then by definition no other course in the world whether already or still to be built will or can ever "merit" this kind of protection. Is that what we want/mean?

Peter  

Peter,

Your first caveat is the one that stares me in the face every time I attempt to envision a preserved Old Course: who gets to decide, and what would the procedure be? It seems obvious from recent events that outside opinions, passionately held as they may be, don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, as Rick Blaine would say.

Your second reservation, however, I can deal with. The Old Course IS one of a kind. Nothing else is close, so I'm completely comfortable treating it as special. I don't know why we'd want to put any other course under glass, since The Old Course is the only first golf course we have. That said, let any other other course try to make a similar claim to merit the kind of protection I'm proposing. Since The Old Course isn't likely to get it, good luck to the rest of them.

[JMEvensky]

 2) if you somehow succeed in conferring special/unique status to the Old Course, you inadvertently open the door and bless any changes to all other golf courses, now and in the future -- since if we agree to "protect" the Old Course because of its special and one-of-a-kind uniqueness and historical importance, then by definition no other course in the world whether already or still to be built will or can ever "merit" this kind of protection. Is that what we want/mean?

Peter  

Peter,if I'm understanding you correctly,your issue is mostly with the process--who exactly is in charge.This whole scene at TOC is familiar to any member of any club--just writ exponentially larger.Peter Dawson is acting as Green Chairmen do all the time.He's set himself up as judge and jury of how TOC should be maintained and to hell with the other opinions.

But,even though I share your distaste with the process,I can't see how you conclude that which I've quoted.Why do you believe drawing a line in the sand over TOC would open all other courses to alteration?

I'd conclude the opposite.Any discussion,by respected architects and/or historians,would IMO make more people realize the value of leaving classic courses untouched.I'd also suggest that the discussion might lead people to question whether altering a golf course,any golf course,as a defense against technology is a worthwhile idea versus altering the technology itself.

If there's going to be a line drawn in the sand,where better to draw it?

[Peter Pallotta]

Rick - understood, by my main point was simply this: that the changes to the Old Course that Tom D first and so strongly reacted against (and that we've been reacting against ever since) came about and are currently being made precisely because the process/rules/check and balances that I suggest need to be in place are currently not in place - such that Mr. Dawson, seemingly singlehandledly, without conferring with and garnering support/consensus from other stakeholders and/or supposed decision-makers, could bring in the earth-movers and start the work before anyone (even well connected and well-informed folks like Tom D) could respond and react. It seems to me that this is the main issue, and that taking time to make other arguments/in roads doesn't address that issue in the least. Please understand, my heart wishes that the Old Course be left alone and be considered sacred -- but my head tells me that trying to convince others of this will not help us in the short or long term, especially when those 'others' seem to have already made up their minds not to be convinced.

Peter  

JM - It seems to me that, if there were today a world governing body for golf architecture, and if some leading architects put before that body a brief arguing that The Old Course be left alone BECAUSE it is unique and sacred and one of a kind, then in the years to come any other leading architects who tried to argue in front of that same body that, say, Myopia or Merion or Sand Hills or Ballyneal or NGLA be left alone, couldn't well base that on the "unique" nature of any of those courses. Maybe I'm being too logical, or maybe not logical enough -- but I'd be happier with something like "you can't change it because we say so, and we have the authority". 

[Jud_T]

 If it is going to be continually updated to adjust to changing styles of golf, it might as well be TPC West.

For the pragmatists out there, this is the fault in your argument.  Let's say for argument's sake that you have no respect whatsoever for the history of the Old Course, it's just another golf course that needs to be toughened up for the pros (hope that filet tastes real good Dr. H).  And forget for the moment that the arms race adds additional cost and time to the game.  From strictly a design point of view, once you get beyond simply adding length, aren't we essentially pushing all golf courses closer together in strategy, playing characteristics, aesthetics, etc.?  As each "small" change promotes toughness, fairness, 4 pin placements, certain length holes etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam, aren't we trying to ultimately fit each tournament venue into our own equivalent of a regulation football field, tennis court, hockey rink or basketball court (albeit with ever increasing dimensions in golf's case)?   Doesn't this kill one of the greatest joys of the game, i.e. that each playing field is in and of itself, with it's own unique history, traditions, funkiness, local rules and milieu?

[Rick Shefchik]

Peter, you're arguing for a Master Plan. I (sort of) facetiously suggest the same thing for TOC a week ago. I thought it was really interesting that this came up shortly after I solicited opinions from the Treehouse about the practicality and efficacy of master plans.

The consensus was that several respected architects should look at your golf course, make recommendations, and your Green Committee (or, in the case of The Old Course, the Links Trust) would decide which, if any, of those recommendations to adopt; then the membership (in the case of TOC, R&A members? St. Andrews citizens?) would vote on whether to write those guidelines and restrictions into the club's bylaws so they would be followed unless overturned by another vote of the membership. That way, the green chairman of the moment or the current club president and his buddies (Peter Dawson and the R&A Competition Committee, for instance) couldn't make changes to the course based on their own whims.

I concluded that such a process was probably too formal for my club; we only go back to 1927, and though most of our members like the course the way it is, it can always use a nip here and a tuck there. But we are not The Old Course, and nobody else is, either. I would repeat my suggestion that the Links Trust adopt a Master Plan. It might well prevent another fiasco like the one we've been talking about.

[A.G._Crockett]

 If it is going to be continually updated to adjust to changing styles of golf, it might as well be TPC West.

For the pragmatists out there, this is the fault in your argument.  Let's say for argument's sake that you have no respect whatsoever for the history of the Old Course, it's just another golf course that needs to be toughened up for the pros (hope that filet tastes real good Dr. H).  And forget for the moment that the arms race adds additional cost and time to the game.  From strictly a design point of view, once you get beyond simply adding length, aren't we essentially pushing all golf courses closer together in strategy, playing characteristics, aesthetics, etc.?  As each "small" change promotes toughness, fairness, 4 pin placements, certain length holes etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam, aren't we trying to ultimately fit each tournament venue into our own equivalent of a regulation football field, tennis court, hockey rink or basketball court (albeit with ever increasing dimensions in golf's case)?   Doesn't this kill one of the greatest joys of the game, i.e. that each playing field is in and of itself, with it's own unique history, traditions, funkiness, local rules and milieu?

Jud,
Why would this be any more true today than it has ever been? 

The uniqueness of the playing field in golf is all of those things you mention, certainly.  But I see no reason to presume that changes made by quality GCA in the years to come would result in the loss of uniqueness any more than changes made by quality GCA in the past did.  Ross tinkered endlessly with #2; was the product worse for that?  C&C did extensive work there many decades later; is the course worse for that work?

Granted that TOC is sui generis in many ways, not the least of which is the role of nature and sheep and such as part of the original design team.  But that doesn't mean that there is now no way to update the creation without losing the uniqueness.  I've played several renovations that have made course better, maybe much better, without changing the essential character of the course, and I know you have, too.  That we have also played renovations that dumbed the course down and made it into something generic is no reason to call a halt to all progress. 

Pressure from groups like this discussion board on those that make the changes is a positive influence.  I'm confident that the R&A will get it right, and that the uniqueness of TOC will not be harmed in the process.

[Jud_T]

A.G.,

I was talking about changes made to classic courses to accommodate the pro tour, not sympathetic restorations.  Pinehurst is a very interesting case, that's why I'm so keen to see the Open there and get back down there to play the course again.

[A.G._Crockett]

Jud,
Continuing work at courses over the years isn't really "sympathetic renovation" is it?  That isn't what Nicklaus has done at Muirfield, nor what Ross was doing at #2 before his death, nor something Strantz's work at Monterey when he essentially reversed the course.  Can't you update and improve a golf course AND keep it relevant to professional golf?  That's been done lots of places, hasn't it?  It could be as simple as drainage or new strains of turf, or as complex as green contours, bunkering and length.  But it can and has been done throughout the history of golf for the betterment of the playing field.

There are miles of gray area in between "sympathetic renovation" and just "accommodating the pro tour".  I'll choose to hope TOC is in that gray area, and at a good place.

Rick Shefchik used the term evolution in reference to TOC.  I love the term; it implies improvement and modernization with movement from a simpler to a more complex form.  Why should the evolution of TOC not improve it? 

[Jud_T]

This isn't Spinal Tap.  The dial doesn't go to 11.  If the course was a 10, how can it be improved?

[Andy Stamm]

I'd have to challenge the premise a little bit. I think you mean that Jack was out of touch with where Daly hit it, not his "pedal to the floor" mentality. But, maybe I'm wrong on that, in which case disregard.

The '78 Open and the '95 Open are two of my favorites ('95 largely because of Jack's commentary), and I watch them (the back 9 Sunday anyway) regularly. To be sure, Daly hit it longer than Jack even in his prime. And Daly was probably a bit longer than the "field" than even Jack was when he was belting it in his younger days, but Jack too was once quite a bit longer than the "field." So, I think Jack was pretty in touch with Daly's game in regards to where he hit it. And the course in '95 and '78 was not that very different (wind of course being a different matter). So, although I never compared, I bet Daly was hitting it further than Jack ever did at St Andrews playing roughly the same tees.

BUT, I think Jack was "out of touch with Daly's game" only in the sense that Jack played much, much more conservatively by nature. Coming down the back 9, Jack was beside himself that Daly kept hitting driver (way left). Jack just couldn't understand why Daly would take the risk with driver. In '78 Jack wasn't even ahead, and he played very, very conservatively down the stretch. Even the announcers (some of whom like Bob Rossburg actually had a clue) were even shocked how conservatively Jack played down the stretch. But I personally don't think that was because Jack could hit it where/how Daly hit it, but rather that he was just very risk averse (not to mention a phenomenal long iron player). So Jack would never take on that risk. Daly on the other hand, just figured this is how I play, and if I hit way left, I won't go OB, and I can hack it up to the green and make 4s. Jack figured the best way to make 4s was to be in position, even if well back.

I think Arnie would have understood Daly's game just fine. And I don't think Jack always understood Arnie's. I think Jack understood Tiger's game just fine and he hit as far as Daly. I think Jack and Tiger were so much better than everybody, they just figured they could win more by playing conservatively. Other players even great ones like Arnie or Mickelson are just wired differently. And the "average player" just figures he has to play aggressively and if he's hot he has a shot. If he's cold, he has the weekend off.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'd have to challenge the premise a little bit. I think you mean that Jack was out of touch with where Daly hit it, not his "pedal to the floor" mentality. But, maybe I'm wrong on that, in which case disregard.

The '78 Open and the '95 Open are two of my favorites ('95 largely because of Jack's commentary), and I watch them (the back 9 Sunday anyway) regularly. To be sure, Daly hit it longer than Jack even in his prime. And Daly was probably a bit longer than the "field" than even Jack was when he was belting it in his younger days, but Jack too was once quite a bit longer than the "field." So, I think Jack was pretty in touch with Daly's game in regards to where he hit it. And the course in '95 and '78 was not that very different (wind of course being a different matter). So, although I never compared, I bet Daly was hitting it further than Jack ever did at St Andrews playing roughly the same tees.

BUT, I think Jack was "out of touch with Daly's game" only in the sense that Jack played much, much more conservatively by nature.
Not really.

When Jack came on the scene, many features, bunkers and others became obsolete due to his distance.
He too was aggressive when he knew that those features, in play for most, where easily disregarded due to his length.

But, as time went by, courses were lengthened to offset that length (read Tigerized)

TOC probably has more randomized bunkering than most U.S. courses and Jack developed his strategies for playing it based on his game.

Daly could ignore Nicklaus's concerns because his talent combined with modern equipment allowed him to disregard the hazards Nicklaus had to consider and avoid.


Coming down the back 9, Jack was beside himself that Daly kept hitting driver (way left). Jack just couldn't understand why Daly would take the risk with driver. In '78 Jack wasn't even ahead, and he played very, very conservatively down the stretch. Even the announcers (some of whom like Bob Rossburg actually had a clue) were even shocked how conservatively Jack played down the stretch. But I personally don't think that was because Jack could hit it where/how Daly hit it, but rather that he was just very risk averse (not to mention a phenomenal long iron player). So Jack would never take on that risk. Daly on the other hand, just figured this is how I play, and if I hit way left, I won't go OB, and I can hack it up to the green and make 4s. Jack figured the best way to make 4s was to be in position, even if well back.

I believe that Jack was using his driver and not irons off the tee, so i doubt he was "laying up" in order to hit long irons into the green

I think Arnie would have understood Daly's game just fine. And I don't think Jack always understood Arnie's. I think Jack understood Tiger's game just fine and he hit as far as Daly. I think Jack and Tiger were so much better than everybody, they just figured they could win more by playing conservatively.

Do you really believe that Tiger was a conservative golfer ?

When the lowest club you hit into any par 4 at ANGC is a 7-iron, how are you playing conservatively off the tee ?

Other players even great ones like Arnie or Mickelson are just wired differently.

And the "average player" just figures he has to play aggressively and if he's hot he has a shot..

I don't think the "average" golfer is as stupid as you imply.
Most golfers are experience driven.
When you're average and you play aggressively, the statistical results and your scores cause you to rethink your strategy.
I've been playing with the same 20 guys for about 50 years.
They ranged from good to mediocre to poor players, but all were ferociously competitive and none of them played "aggressively" as a pattern

If he's cold, he has the weekend off.

If your guy is "cold" he loses his shirt.
Emptying one's ATM every weekend is a great educator and he'll soon discover that if he doesn't have the talent, and average golfers don't have the talent, that aggressive play is not a sound strategy.

[Andy Stamm]

At St Andrews there are ways to play safe other than hitting irons, namely playing left.

Coming home in '78 Jack played way left on 13 (didn't see the tee shot).

On 14 he played so far left (with driver) that he was left of the center rough and into the 5th fairway. From a perfect lie where he could reach the green (or play long leaving a much easier pitch back into the wind) he laid up with an iron about 40 yards short of the green (baffling Rossburg and Dave Marr) leaving himself a brutal pitch (of course he hit a magnificent pitch).

On 15 he hit 3 wood, 8 (probably) iron.

On 16 he hit 3 wood to the left side when he could have driven to within 50 or so yards of the green (which his partner the tournament leader did). He hit 9 iron in.

On 17 he hit 3 wood to the left side well short of where the rest of the field was hitting driver. He played a 6 iron pin high right, a shrewd, but conservative play, leaving himself a tough lag to a pin just over the bunker.

On 18 he hit 3 wood short left when he could have almost certainly driven the green. He then conservatively pitched well long avoiding the valley of sin. In the interview afterward, he even laughed at himself for how conservatively he played this hole which gave Simon Owen an opening.

So, he hit one driver on 14 and played it way, way left. Even approaches on 14, 17, and 18 were conservative. I don't think anyone watching him wouldn't say that he played very conservatively. The tournament was a dogfight, too, he wasn't ahead until 17.

As far as 1995, Jack played well, but at 55 he was way past his prime. He did compare how he played the course to how Daly played it. But he wasn't hitting the ball at all long around that time, so comparing how he'd play a course at that time to how an in his prime Daly played it was a bit ridiculous. In his prime distance wise at a place like St Andrews Jack and Daly would have similar options, although I think strategically they'd play the course much, much differently.

Tiger's approach at Hoylake was the most conservative golf I've ever seen. His play this year at Olympic was also very, very conservative. Sure he plays aggressively sometimes, but I bet he's hit more irons off the tee (and 3 woods) than any other player during his era.

As far as the "average player" comments, I meant "average PGA tour player." I think the average PGA player plays pretty aggressively because that's the way (if he's on) he can compete with the Woods and Nicklaus's of the world (or whichever other "average" players are hot that week.)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tiger's approach at Hoylake was the most conservative golf I've ever seen. His play this year at Olympic was also very, very conservative. Sure he plays aggressively sometimes, but I bet he's hit more irons off the tee (and 3 woods) than any other player during his era.

Andy,

The way Tiger has devolved in terms of driving the ball, I doubt that he'd risk aggressive play, he hasn't been that accurate in recent years.

As far as the "average player" comments, I meant "average PGA tour player."

OK, that's makes a big difference.

I think the average PGA player plays pretty aggressively because that's the way (if he's on) he can compete with the Woods and Nicklaus's of the world (or whichever other "average" players are hot that week.)

In general, they seem to be percentage players.

They seem to disect a course pretty well and then play it in the most efficient way.


[/quote]

[Andy Stamm]

So then you agree that Tiger often plays quite conservatively?

And for what it's worth in 2006 Tiger was still plenty accurate and utterly dominant.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So then you agree that Tiger often plays quite conservatively?

Like all great players, I don't think it's a function of a game plan, but rather an assessment of one's game at the time and place of play.

When you're "on your game", you get more aggressive, when you're not in control of your game, you get more conservative.

And for what it's worth in 2006 Tiger was still plenty accurate and utterly dominant.

I think his putting had more to do with that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()