Weaknesses of Royal St. George's?

[James Edwards]

The land to the north is the expansive practice area which RStG is lucky to have.  They built a brand new practice tee for the open in the middle of the area so that gives you an indication of the size.  I know Faldo spends a lot of time at the club on the practice ground preparing for most links championships and he has said he likes the "away" factor of being somewhere where no one bothers him.  

When you are practicing there, you feel alone, very alone.  Especially on a cold day in the winter when everything is grey and the wind is howling.

I agree 18 bunkering is not the best.  The cross bunkers are to far down the fairway and the greenside bunker is not used a great deal because the place to miss is low left every time.  I agree it's strategic value is questionable.  The cross bunkering is out of place on this course IMO.

The 18th tee is elevated by a significant margin (which you can't see on tele and hitting it right is common place because the tee cleverly aims you 5% right which brings that front bunker into play.  

(The best play I saw here was from an ex walker cup player Bobbie Eggo, who played against us - Kent vs Hampshire this year -  He hit a solid 3wood off the tee with shape right to left and left himself a longer second but straight up the green from the fairway.  Everyone else hit driver and goes slightly right with the slope off the greenside bunker running away with no room to stop the ball).

RStG wouldn't have parellel holes FBD - I thought of the same routing.  But then again 9 and 10 sort of play like that.

[James Edwards]

Rich,

Your right about the risk reward options at RStG, but that is true for most of the links courses on the Open Rota.

This is why TOC has the upper hand over the others in terms of strategic value for money because it does have it's fair share of R&R.  (9,12,17 especially)

[Lester_Bernham]

Will we once again hear :

" The Course has got the champion it deserved " ?

[Paul Richards]

Lester:

You said:
>Will we once again hear : " The Course has got the champion it deserved " ?  

I don't think so. If you look at RSG's roster of champions, it is pretty strong.  Maybe 20 years from now the name "Ben Curtis" will be read off with the great names of golf?

[Lester_Bernham]

Shades of Bill Rogers then ?

[Chris Kane]

Lester,
It's worth looking at the quality of the players near the top of the leaderboard, not just the winner himself.  Three of the top six players in the world had a genuine chance to win with two holes remaining.

Royal St Georges got the thrilling championship it deserved.

[ForkaB]

J.J.S.E

I think you are generally right about the lack of R&R on most Open courses, at least with today's technologies and today's championship set-ups.  I personally think that Carnousite is at least as good as TOC in this category (2, 6, 17, 18, for example), and Hoylake used to be (haven't seen the new holes).  Even Troon, with 1 and 11 (and who knows, maybe 2, 3 and 7 will be driveable when they go there next year.  Maybe even 18, if the ground is hard and the wind is right......).

What slightly disapointed me in watching this Open (and the US one too) was that there didn't seem to be much thinkng involved by the pros off the tee.  Rather, they agonised in terms of finding a club that would be more likely to hit the semi (god forbid that a "drive" should end up on the fairway!).  No sense that IF they hit it consistently to certain places they would gain a series of fractional advantages which would allow them to triumph, if they converted.  More a case of birdie/eagle the two par 4.25s (4 and 7), survival and hope for a few good bounces on the rest.

My take on Curtis, just from watching him, is that he played a "hit it, find it and hit it again" strategy.  And, just as it usually does with us hackers (you are exempted form this statement, being a county player...), it actually worked!  While Tiger struggled to find the green with wedges (shades of 1997-1998) Ben just moved forward, clamly and effectively.  A very deserving winner.

[Darren_Kilfara]

I would certainly hope that this week's tournament firmly puts the lie to the "great golf courses make great champions" argument. Anyone who doesn't think RSG this week wasn't one of THE outstanding tests of major championship golf in the last 10-20 years (the last major setup I enjoyed more was probably the 1995 US Open at Shinnecock) doesn't know what good golf is, and yet the #396 player in the world is the champion it produced. And there's nothing whatsoever wrong with that. The guy who played the best golf for 72 holes won the tournament, which is how it usually works at any major (or non-major) championship you wish to name. To say RSG got the thrilling championship it deserved is true, but if Ben Curtis or Tiger Woods or anyone else had shot four 68s and comfortably lapped the field, would that change the way I look at the golf course? I'd like to think it wouldn't.

Chris Kane - you can't possibly argue "look at the players near the top of the leaderboard", either. There are many championships down the years where a great golfer has won and Bob May-type golfers have finished second, third, fourth, fifth, etc. (No disrespect to Bob May intended, but hopefully you get the point.) This whole line of reasoning is utter hogwash...it's a bit like asserting that Barry Bonds is more likely to be a great hitter when he plays in PacBell Park than in, say, the Metrodome, simply because the former is a better stadium than the latter. Do you believe that to be true?

Cheers,
Darren

[Nigel_Walton]

Darren, I must respectfully disagree. When the best players in the world have a one in five chance of hitting one third of the fairways, fortune's role in dictating the quality of lie in the rough has become too important. In some ways, a golf course setup for a championship is like the construction of a science experiment. If the result is overly random, it is simply of a lower quality.

Mr Curtis played very well. We noted his ability to hit shots with a variety of trajectories during the middle of the round. Clearly this young man played quality golf.

However, many of us felt that Royal St George's was set up in a near Carnoustie style, which all would agree was overly harsh. The golf course is of the highest calibre. It would have held up very well relative to par even if many of the fairways had been ten or fifteen yards wider. Perhaps the golf would have been more exciting to watch as well. All in all, though, kudos to Mr Curtis.

[James Edwards]

Rich,

Yes,  I agree with your examples.  I had forgotten about the fantastic #6 at Carnoustie.  One of the best, although the fairway could be wider than 6-7yards at landing zone 2 next time!!

Again, I can appreciate why you have said they didn't have to think about it off the tee.  I suppose if you compare to Carnoustie as some others have done, the professionals have learnt there lesson since that 99 championship.  They were all hitting irons into the rough and were not far enough down to hit the green.  Maybe they all hit Driver (esp Tiger) this week, in order to guarantee that if they were off line they could get it home - possibly?

I do know that the most successful play this week off the first was with the long iron, not driver, because the area where the ball was pitching (at say 250-60 ish) is an extremely undulating area, and the iron landing zone is relatively flat.  Tiger and Singh showed this beautifully when Woods hit the long iron and towering 6 iron to 20 ft, Singh hit the Driver - straight - and had SW to 10ft.  The course was not as unfair as Carnoustie IMO.

But you are spot on with the Par 5's because normally they play into the wind and birdie isn't so hard to come by.  It's a good job, the wind wasn't the other way round im telling you!

I admire Curtis, because he has Woods subtle arrogance in that great interview with Curtis Strange all that time ago when he said he wants to win every tournament.  Ben Curtis said he feels he belongs and that he deserves it - what great confidence!  Well done Ben!

[A_Clay_Man]

I'm concerned about the "sun in your eyes'  justification for changing the finisher.

Is this type of thinking how the american classic courses started down the road to needing restorations?

I agree with Darren about this open championship and the stats that Nigel throws out are mis-leading. The 20% number wasn't their chance, it was past performance results. Plus, as noted above the runners up list is quite impressive for this open. So impressive that I am sure it was the caddie who won the open   or at least he was a real advantage for Curtis. Have you ever seen so many mis-reads in your life? And Sergio's lipresy was evident early yet with each lip out he became more and more shocked. Is he looking for a move to Hollywood?

[Jamie_Duffner]

Nigel a very good point and similar to my problems with ANGC, you have to provide width when you have greens and firmness like RSG.  With the fairway contours and extremely fast and firm conditions, most tee balls found the rough.  If the ball only rolled into the first cut of rough (if that really exists), then the lack of control only exaggerated the links style.  That is not to say that balls struck from the fairways were controlled.  It still required skillful shot making, keeping the ball low, and using the contours of the greens and surrounding areas.  To me, that would have been better, rather the  randomness caused by playing out of the rough.

If the fiarways were the proper width given the contours and the conditions, then we'd have seen more interesting strategy.  

Stil RSG looked fantastic and still provided a great competition.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Did the best players in the world really have an only 1-in-5 chance of hitting one-third of the fairways...or, if hitting the fairways was what mattered, could they not have taken three-iron or four-iron off of some of the tees instead and left themselves longer shots into the greens? From what I saw, the latter was a possibility on several fairways where the severely crowned bits didn't begin until the latter stages of the landing zones - beyond the range of most of the RSG members. If that is indeed the case, it seems to me that the pros were uniformly deciding that hitting driver or three-wood and taking the risk of a mediocre lie in the rough was the best possible pay...in which case, how do you blame the golf course or its setup for that? Isn't that sort of decision-making exactly what professional golf needs nowadays to retain a modicum of interest? (Jamie, in this case it would be length, rather than width, dictating the strategy...)

Cheers,
Darren

[Jamie_Duffner]

Darren - that is a very valid point and you had to look no further than Tiger who ratcheted down from driver to 3-wood to 2 iron on several holes over the course of the competition.  My response to that would be that a player should not be forced into a 2 iron on too many holes, particularly long par 4's, nor should the risk/reward be skewed so heavily against using the driver.  Should there be more risk for using the driver?  Absolutley, but the success rate shouldn't be less than 10% on several holes.  I think that's the point, on one or two holes, that's fine, but beyond that it iminishes the strategic elements of the course, which is ashame since RSG is loaded with strategy.

[James Edwards]

Darren I agree with you.

The wind was not the prevailing wind this week.  Turn the wind around completely, look at Scott's AOTD and see how this changes the course and it's strategy.  The course becomes a few shots harder - trust me, I play there enough.  Heres the easy opening holes?!?

#1) you drive into flat area called the kitchen (which we didn't even see this week - it's like a basin cut out of a flat fairway) leaving long iron in. (this week Dr, PW)

#2)  you have to lay up short of the bunkers on the left with long iron or take them on to the right with Driver leaving punch mid iron. (this week Dr, LW)

the fun begins at #4 can you carry the big bunker - it's a tougher proposition? (this week Dr, 4 iron)

#5 you hit 3w to the corner possibly Driver then blind second with mid/short iron. (this week Drive the green)

#7 par 5 is unreachable- straight into wind looking at thick rough on the hill. (this week Dr, mid iron)

I know this means that some holes plays easier, but the wind to play at RStG is the SW wind which they had this week.  At least they could reach the two par 5's and make a score early on.

[Paul_Turner]

The most common criticism of Sandwich is that the flatter inward 9 is less spectacular than the outward.  But for me, it's always been just about my favourite course and the change in terrain adds to its variety.

I agree with Ran that the course doesn't have a knockout par 3 (like 8th Troon, 9th/12th Lytham) but  I thought the 11th looked much more interesting than I remembered.

The green complexes are brilliant with tons of variety from the skyline 10th to the sheltered 6th.  So what of the green speeds are slightly different due to mother nature?  This just adds to the judgement required.  The best complex is perhaps 9th, which I believe Tom Doak credits at Dr Mack's.  I think he also shifted the 17th green from the fronting hollow onto the ridge.

Great variety of hazard with the bunker placement and OB.

The lumpy/sloped ground on most holes encourages a shaped tee shot, what could be more strategic than this?

The rankings get it wrong, because they rely too much on Pro golfers who dislike its quirky side.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Darren - that is a very valid point and you had to look no further than Tiger who ratcheted down from driver to 3-wood to 2 iron on several holes over the course of the competition.  My response to that would be that a player should not be forced into a 2 iron on too many holes, particularly long par 4's, nor should the risk/reward be skewed so heavily against using the driver.  Should there be more risk for using the driver?  Absolutley, but the success rate shouldn't be less than 10% on several holes.  I think that's the point, on one or two holes, that's fine, but beyond that it iminishes the strategic elements of the course, which is ashame since RSG is loaded with strategy.

Jamie, independent of the above bit of hyperbole (I don't think the success rate was less than 10% for any hole, never mind several of them), I think you misunderstand "risk/reward" as it applies to Royal St. George's. If RSG were set up for a US Open, with five-inch rough just off the fairways, then yes, you could argue that players were being "forced into a 2 iron" (or less). But that's not what RSG offered. Every hole, even the ones with super severe fairways, gave you a bonafide choice between driver and lay-up options. If you chose a lay-up club and hit it well, you'd almost certainly be in the fairway. If you chose a driver and hit it well, you'd almost certainly be at worst in the semi-rough. I would have to assume from what I saw last week that most professionals believe that wedge approaches from the semi-rough are easier to control than mid-iron approaches from the fairway. More power to them - that's the bed they chose to lie in - but it simply isn't the case to suggest that "risk/reward was skewed so heavily against the driver". The very definition of risk/reward implies that to take the driver is to take greater risks in the hope of gaining greater rewards (being much closer to the green, either in the fairway or with a playable lie in the rough), doesn't it?

J.J.S.E, if RSG plays that well in what is not the prevailing wind, it truly must be one of the great courses in the world. I'm really surprised that RSG didn't make much of an impression on my in 1985 or 1993, because after the events of the past week, the course has certainly jumped into my list of the two or three courses I'd most like to see the Open at again...I look forward to when I'm next anywhere near Kent so that I can drop in and see how it plays in person!

Cheers,
Darren