Dufner on Doral

[Ryan Coles]

You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.

[Ryan Coles]

You chaps are right. Phil is lying, Tiger Woods is lying. 300 balls in the water is just like the golden age guys intended. What a wonderful test. I wish more courses were like this. These lousy best players in the world just don't know how to adapt. The only thing missing is some wonderful flat bunkers in the shape of Mickey Mouse ears.

I'm trying to grasp how the course has no strategy because it has 4 more holes where the greens were brought closer to the existing ponds,yet the width on the opposite side was left there. (other than 15 where the pond was enlarged also)........
yet it also has no strategy because players are aiming for bunkers, that are evidently not severe enough.(like we never see players aiming for bunkers in a US Open)

Doral didn't invent the perfectly maintained bunker that's barely a hazard for pros

The ball can be run up at Doral on 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10,13,14,17, and even 18 assuming the player is in position
the fairways have TONS of width to allow these positions.

On one of the few holes with less of a runup otion, it doesn't seem a stretch to force the player to work the ball into the wind FROM 150 YARDS to allow a birdie chance, as Kuchar did, moments after the supposedly "unfair" Johnson shot.

We get it, It's not Muirfield or TOC, though Muirfield would've been way better last year if they'd let the greens be as firm as Doral's.

In practice the approaches are nowhere near as firm as the greens. From what I can see, the rare ball that lands short, stays short.

That cultured shotmaker Kuchar hit right on the front of the green on the long par 3 and still ended up in the water. I've never seen anyone hit a great recovery from the water.

Name a PGA Tour site with firm greens that has approaches equally as firm

Never said Kuchar was a shotmaker.
he just happens to play a fade  which on 15 Friday was useful
Never liked that hole (#4 if that's the one you're referring to)

was going to have some fun but you changed it from #11

Jeff

None. Other than the open. And I have no problem with that. PGA tour is set up for the aerial game. I just think its lame when as with the US Open things are firmed up with no prospect of running the ball in. I.e lakes, bunkers and Bermuda grass approaching the greens.

[jeffwarne]

You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.

If a player is not expected to curve a ball to counter the wind,(DJ ala 15 Doral friday)
and if a hole is lousy when a player's best choice is a bunker due to "a breeze"
haven't you pretty much eliminated many links holes?


Isn't it OK to have a hole in certain conditions that the green can't be hit and held? even if it means going over?
Isn't course management and figuring out the best score possible part of the test?
I say if there's a perfect, doable shot for every circumstance, you got a poor design that's failing to test the patience and thougtfulness of a player

[Ryan Coles]

You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.

If a player is not expected to curve a ball to counter the wind,(DJ ala 15 Doral friday)
and if a hole is lousy when a player's best choice is a bunker due to "a breeze"
haven't you pretty much eliminated many links holes?


Isn't it OK to have a hole in certain conditions that the green can't be hit and held? even if it means going over?
Isn't course management and figuring out the best score possible part of the test?
I say if there's a perfect, doable shot for every circumstance, you got a poor design that's failing to test the patience and thougtfulness of a player

No on a links course you play away from and around the hazards. The hazards tend to be what is punitive. Rather than landing on the front of the green. And going into water over the back. Play the shot again and have it stay near its pitch mark just short of the green.

A good course in enhanced by a wind. Apply that test to Doral and the current set up fails. I'll wager the redo will be redone. Rolling off a green is one thing, balls continually rolling off into water is Mickey Mouse golf.

[Jason Thurman]

Ryan, you're continuing to operate on a set of assumptions that have been repeatedly discredited by people who have seen the course in person. Like this one:

I just think its lame when as with the US Open things are firmed up with no prospect of running the ball in. I.e lakes, bunkers and Bermuda grass approaching the greens.

There are, at most, five holes that don't allow a run-up approach. Most of them will see a player hitting a wedge or short iron to reach the green in regulation, which is hardly a situation where the ground game is relevant. You're digging yourself a pretty big credibility hole by sticking to a narrative that demonstrates that you aren't really paying attention to the course and, on top of that, that you don't understand the inherent firmness in newly constructed putting surfaces. Your observations of the course are contrary to those of EVERYONE who has seen it in person. Perhaps you should reconsider your outlook or withhold some judgment until you've gained more than a cursory familiarity with the course.

[jeffwarne]

You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.

If a player is not expected to curve a ball to counter the wind,(DJ ala 15 Doral friday)
and if a hole is lousy when a player's best choice is a bunker due to "a breeze"
haven't you pretty much eliminated many links holes?


Isn't it OK to have a hole in certain conditions that the green can't be hit and held? even if it means going over?
Isn't course management and figuring out the best score possible part of the test?
I say if there's a perfect, doable shot for every circumstance, you got a poor design that's failing to test the patience and thougtfulness of a player

No on a links course you play away from and around the hazards. The hazards tend to be what is punitive. Rather than landing on the front of the green. And going into water over the back. Play the shot again and have it stay near its pitch mark just short of the green.

A good course in enhanced by a wind. Apply that test to Doral and the current set up fails. I'll wager the redo will be redone.

Let's assume there's no way to really have the fairways play as firm as the greens since you never see that in the US, esp on bermuda.
Wouldn't the fact that the greens are substantially larger help?
Why is Reed able to negotiate all these impossible shots?

Look I'm disappointed to see more water introduced to play lines at Doral as I don't care for water as a frequent hazard.
It's not on my short list to play even though I'm quite connected there.
But as a Tour site I enjoy it a lot.
I really like the greens and width of fairways..

By the way, in general I'm a big fan of waaaaay fewer bunkers that are far more penal.
the problem is they are attempting to honor Dick Wilson at a Tour site called The Blue Monster for Donald Trump, and I think they served these masters well, even if those four masters aren't synonomous with classic design
The course is a symbol of an era in golf architecture, and that era was the dark ages
 Kudos to Hanse for introducing some of the strategic features that were in the original plans but not built, and kudos to Hanse for introducing a few strategic features of his own.

I just happen to think this course has way more strategy of any of the tour courses I am familiar with(a relatively small #) except Augusta.

I am afraid they will do some tweaks, sadly they won't involve removing water, but no doubt will involve the best feature of the new course, the undulations on the greens. I heard a moronic announcer mention just that but the reality is they'd just run them a foot slower with the predicted forecast, nearly all of their problems would've gone away.

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan, you're continuing to operate on a set of assumptions that have been repeatedly discredited by people who have seen the course in person. Like this one:

I just think its lame when as with the US Open things are firmed up with no prospect of running the ball in. I.e lakes, bunkers and Bermuda grass approaching the greens.

There are, at most, five holes that don't allow a run-up approach. Most of them will see a player hitting a wedge or short iron to reach the green in regulation, which is hardly a situation where the ground game is relevant. You're digging yourself a pretty big credibility hole by sticking to a narrative that demonstrates that you aren't really paying attention to the course and, on top of that, that you don't understand the inherent firmness in newly constructed putting surfaces. Your observations of the course are contrary to those of EVERYONE who has seen it in person. Perhaps you should reconsider your outlook or withhold some judgment until you've gained more than a cursory familiarity with the course.

Jason

It's always best to keep a open mind, I agree.

However, I'm sceptical of what EVERYONE thinks and prefer to think for myself rather than rely on much of the received wisdom and romanticised idealism perpetuated by many on here who laud on one hand and criticise with another and switch 360 degrees depending on who the designer is. There is too much rigid thinking that firm and fast, trees removal  etc etc equals good, even when some courses are just not suitable. Which, in my view is the category this course falls into.

I have no problem with courses with water or those that promote an aerial game. But if they become a nonsense in a reasonable wind, I'm afraid that blaming the player for a lack of course management and avoiding the obvious is credibility sapping in itself.

No one manages their game better than a tour pro. Course management is the big separator from top amateur to journeyman. Blaming the pros, over egging the strength of the wind, saying the greens will soften, that Phil is a know it all, Tiger slept around, is all well and nice but the truth is one of the golden boys has put his name to a course that to many with an open mind, was farcical in places this week.

[Ryan Coles]

You've answered your own question Jason except on lots of holes in a breeze there isn't a position A. Only the player has the option of selecting the lesser of two evils as you describe. That's basic course management on a lousy course. I'd prefer the player attempt to hit the correct shot. With a reasonable chance of reward for the level of risk taken. If a player is aiming for a hazard, to my mind, that's a defect.

If a player is not expected to curve a ball to counter the wind,(DJ ala 15 Doral friday)
and if a hole is lousy when a player's best choice is a bunker due to "a breeze"
haven't you pretty much eliminated many links holes?


Isn't it OK to have a hole in certain conditions that the green can't be hit and held? even if it means going over?
Isn't course management and figuring out the best score possible part of the test?
I say if there's a perfect, doable shot for every circumstance, you got a poor design that's failing to test the patience and thougtfulness of a player

No on a links course you play away from and around the hazards. The hazards tend to be what is punitive. Rather than landing on the front of the green. And going into water over the back. Play the shot again and have it stay near its pitch mark just short of the green.

A good course in enhanced by a wind. Apply that test to Doral and the current set up fails. I'll wager the redo will be redone.

Let's assume there's no way to really have the fairways play as firm as the greens since you never see that in the US, esp on bermuda.
Wouldn't the fact that the greens are substantially larger help?
Why is Reed able to negotiate all these impossible shots?

Look I'm disappointed to see more water introduced to play lines at Doral as I don't care for water as a frequent hazard.
It's not on my short list to play even though I'm quite connected there.
But as a Tour site I enjoy it a lot.
I really like the greens and width of fairways..

By the way, in general I'm a big fan of waaaaay fewer bunkers that are far more penal.
the problem is they are attempting to honor Dick Wilson at a Tour site called The Blue Monster for Donald Trump, and I think they served these masters well, even if those four masters aren't synonomous with classic design
The course is a symbol of an era in golf architecture, and that era was the dark ages
 Kudos to Hanse for introducing some of the strategic features that were in the original plans but not built, and kudos to Hanse for introducing a few strategic features of his own.

I just happen to think this course has way more strategy of any of the tour courses I am familiar with(a relatively small #) except Augusta.

I am afraid they will do some tweaks, sadly they won't involve removing water, but no doubt will involve the best feature of the new course, the undulations on the greens. I heard a moronic announcer mention just that but the reality is they'd just run them a foot slower with the predicted forecast, nearly all of their problems would've gone away.

Jeff

Your caveats are my criticisms.

Too many bunkers and none of them penal enough. Agree

Too much water. Agree

Yes, there is little they can do with Bermuda approaches. But this means the option to run the ball isn't really viable. Which means that the player doesn't have the option of keeping his ball out of the wind with more club and bouncing the ball up. In my view this is a fundamental requisite if the course is set up fast. Therefore with water all around the only option is to have softer greens or make it less penal in terms of water hazards. They've done neither. Hence on the day there was a decent wind they had a joke course.

[jeffwarne]

Ryan,
In 1999 at Carnoustie, the wind blew 20 on average, with gusts to 30 mph (the same as Friday at Doral)
The average score that day was 78.3 -7 over par, and the best score was even par.
Was that course farcical?
Surely they expect the wind to blow on the coast of Scotland

BTW, at Doral, as the greens mature and thatch develops, the greens will accept more shots.
Hard to see that being Hanse's fault, and glad he didn't design to accomodate a first year only issue

[Tim_Cronin]

This final round is becoming more and more fun to watch. There's nothing wrong with a hard golf course that provokes final round drama.

[Ryan Coles]

Ryan,
In 1999 at Carnoustie, the wind blew 20 on average, with gusts to 30 mph (the same as Friday at Doral)
The average score that day was 78.3 -7 over par, and the best score was even par.
Was that course farcical?
Surely they expect the wind to blow on the coast of Scotland

BTW, at Doral, as the greens mature and thatch develops, the greens will accept more shots.
Hard to see that being Hanse's fault, and glad he didn't design to accomodate a first year only issue

Jeff

The course that week was beyond farcical. It was way too narrow and they over fertilised and left the rough too long.

Carnoustie is a sound design that set up correctly is a great course. I don't wish to make a comparison, but if forced, I would say that Dorals flaw lay as much in its design as the way it's set up. In any event, this discussion isn't a Ryder cup style, your courses are lousier than ours contest.

[Ryan Coles]

This final round is becoming more and more fun to watch. There's nothing wrong with a hard golf course that provokes final round drama.

On a flat calm day........

[Don_Mahaffey]

Carnasty in '99 was one of the worst set ups ever for a major.
Fertilized rough, narrowed fwys, it was a torture chamber.
Worst yet, it was blamed on a rouge greenkeeper and since then all the associations that run tournaments think they have to come in and take over the course for the years leading up to a tournament. Or, maybe it was just an excuse to do so.
I remember some from the USGA trying to say the same about Shinny, but I think it was quickly proven that the USGA were the ones who had gone rogue.

[Tim_Cronin]

This final round is becoming more and more fun to watch. There's nothing wrong with a hard golf course that provokes final round drama.

On a flat calm day........

Friday was interesting as well. There are a lot of robots on the circuit who don't know how to adjust or understand how new greens react – generally like car hoods.

[jeffwarne]

So I think we can all agree that the course works on a calm to typically windy South Florida spring day (10-15 mph)

Is it such a disaster that for 9 million $$$ the players were asked to play 18 holes under very trying conditions where they had to shape the ball and found it difficult to stop it downwind and might not have gotten the exact release they wanted if landing short? (no PGA Tour players were harmed in the filming of this event)

Last I checked they got their balls for free

[Ryan Coles]

So I think we can all agree that the course works on a calm to typically windy South Florida spring day (10-15 mph)

Is it such a disaster that for 9 million $$$ the players were asked to play 18 holes under very trying conditions where they had to shape the ball and found it difficult to stop it downwind and might not have gotten the exact release they wanted if landing short? (no PGA Tour players were harmed in the filming of this event)

Last I checked they got their balls for free

Again, all the onus on the player. A more sobering thought is that one of the top guys with a huge budget delivered a bit of a turkey that fairway width aside belies everything preached about what is good in modern architecture. 300 balls in the water indeed.

No pga players hurt, but a few people on here as upset as when they found out there was no Santa Claus.

[jeffwarne]

So I think we can all agree that the course works on a calm to typically windy South Florida spring day (10-15 mph)

Is it such a disaster that for 9 million $$$ the players were asked to play 18 holes under very trying conditions where they had to shape the ball and found it difficult to stop it downwind and might not have gotten the exact release they wanted if landing short? (no PGA Tour players were harmed in the filming of this event)

Last I checked they got their balls for free

Again, all the onus on the player. A more sobering thought is that one of the top guys with a huge budget delivered a bit of a turkey that fairway width aside belies everything preached about what is good in modern architecture. 300 balls in the water indeed.

No pga players hurt, but a few people on here as upset as when they found out there was no Santa Claus.

yep 9 million onuses
It's.....called.....The......Blue....................Monster.

[Ryan Coles]

But Jeff, now they've all gone home, what's left? The Blue Monstrosity?

[jeffwarne]

But Jeff, now they've all gone home, what's left? The Blue Monstrosity?

Call and see if you can get a tee time for the next month.
There's a great classic course I really enjoy 1 mile from there. They will do 1/20 the revenue of the Blue over the same time period.
Nobody said you needed to embody all principles of GCA.com to max revenue

[Tim_Cronin]

Golf, like Baskin-Robbins, needs more than one flavor.

[John McCarthy]

A golf course, on A day with the wind up, played a bit unfair. 

And everyone has their dress over their head.

Does anyone think anyone but Reed played the best this week?  Was a champion indentified?


BTW, if Reed has that thousand yard stare, I want him as the anchorman for singles at the Ryder Cup.  He was not going to lose today.

[Don_Mahaffey]

It will be interesting to see if they make any changes. My sense is the tour doesn't like seeing their stars get embarrassed.
Birdies drive the tour, not balls hitting the middle of the green and rolling into the water.
I didn't watch a lot of the tournament, but I did catch a shot by Justin Rose on Sat, hole #3? where he was in a left fwy bunker, flew it right over a front pin, hit, checked, and then trickled into the water. I though that was severe, but I guess he shouldn't have hit it past the hole from that angle.
I don't think they should change a thing until the course has a chance to age, but the tour is the tour, and it wouldn't be the first time.

[Bill Brightly]

Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.

Ryan,

With 87 posts, I know you are new here, so I'll try to be kind. But when you make bold statements criticizing a course, be prepared to back it up with facts. At least know the hole where players intentionally aimed for the bunker. I asked you, and you could not answer. There clearly was no hole at Doral where the best option was to aim at a bunker.

You can't criticize an entire course as lacking strategic options because one or two pros aimed a bunker. Tell us the circumstances. What hole was it? Was the pro out of position after his drive?  Don't take a comment made by a PRO out of context. 2 plus 2 does not equal 22.

[Ryan Coles]

Several players including woods have mentioned trying to do just that in post round interviews. I suspect any hole where you can't land the ball short and run it up. Or any hole where you cannot land on the green and stop it.

Ryan,

With 87 posts, I know you are new here, so I'll try to be kind. But when you make bold statements criticizing a course, be prepared to back it up with facts. At least know the hole where players intentionally aimed for the bunker. I asked you, and you could not answer. There clearly was no hole at Doral where the best option was to aim at a bunker.

You can't criticize an entire course as lacking strategic options because one or two pros aimed a bunker. Tell us the circumstances. What hole was it? Was the pro out of position after his drive?  Don't take a comment made by a PRO out of context. 2 plus 2 does not equal 22.

Quality, not quantity William!

My opinions are just that. They are no more or less factual than yours. Like and dislike are qualitative rather than quantitative.

I assure you Tiger Woods said in his post round interview yesterday with Sky Sports as did at least one other I can't recall, that they tried to hit into the green side bunker. I note you said earlier in the thread that 'perhaps it was a par five'. In my view this shows that perhaps you don't have the grasp of strategy that you think you do. Par is just an arbitrary number and I can see no reason why par should dictate or excuse why anyone, least of all a pro would choose to play a hole a certain way. The aim is to go round in the fewest strokes.

If you're going to make lofty, grandiose 'you're new here son' comments you should perhaps live up to this yourself and read and debate with a little more care. I watched a fair bit of this over the weekend and at times, particularly on Friday, it made for embarrassing viewing with the course producing completely disproportionate punishment to shots, good and bad. Just my view as I saw it. Not based on a couple of whinging pro's. more like dozens of balls rolling into a watery grave after landing on a green with bunkers and Bermuda fairways short of it.

I can and do criticise courses as I see fit. As do you. Rather than try and find a bunch of excuses and caveats, perhaps you could rebutt my criticism that the course has far too much water. Far too much sand. Very few penal bunkers. Is farcical in a reasonable wind and is not suitable for firm and fast conditions and given both becomes a Mickey Mouse course. This course is the antithesis of everything preached on here and yet because one of the favourite sons has his name attached, you and others are wriggling with weasel words rather than call it like it is.

[Bill Brightly]

What is the hole number Ryan?