Woods/Els on Oak Hill

[Fred_C.]

Hello Folks,

I saw Woods and Els quoted in the NY Times today on Oak Hill:

Woods describing OH:  "it is the hardest, fairest course he has ever played."

Els:   "This is a classic (venue).  If we can play every major on a golf course like this, it would be great.  It's a great test of golf, a fair test."

Do we take these comments at face value?  Are they justified in making these statements?

Yours,

FJC

[Brian_Ewen]

Yet Paul Casey said:

"It was pretty horrible to be honest and I'm not afraid to say that (the course) is really boring - not enjoyable whatsoever.

"I've a hard time understanding why they (the organising PGA of America) want par to be a winning score.

"My golf is to go at pins and attack, but when it's like this I've got to alter my thinking and learn to plod away.

"But I would sign a petition asking that other courses are not set up like this."

[Andy]

Hmmm, Els and Woods versus Paul Casey...wonder who should carry more weight on their comments?  The Casey version is that let me rip it long, anywhere I want, and attack every pin.  Sounds like a young man who grew up with a hot golf ball, knuckleballing metal woods, and perimeter weighted clubs, playing each shot of his left heel and hitting it hard.  Anyone agree with that?

[John_Conley]

Micheel was -12 or something if you call it a par 72.  For many golfers, 495 is a par 5.  And please don't tell me how it should be a par 4 because THEY can reach it with a Drive and iron.  No doubt.  They can also reach #17 at Castle Pines and a host of other Tour par 5s with a Drive and mid-iron.

Par is just a number, baby.

From what I saw - and I didn't watch as much as most - the course looked great.  I'd like to see the rough a little shorter around the green to bring more than hack-and-hope into the mix.

Who's Paul Casey?  

[Matt_Ward]

My only issue with Oak Hill is to follow-up on what John C mentioned. Having rough just a bit short in the driving zone or widening the fairways just a tad would have also been a good idea because there were too many instances when players simply used a SW or lob wedge to get back to the fairway.

I like the USGA stance of half shot penalties when missing fairways -- when you simply reduce the event to a straight driving affair and leave little room for recovery you have the makings for a drab and dull event. Until the last 2-3 holes the PGA this year was really a zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz championship.

Compared to the excitement of the last few years there's no comparison. Bring back Bob May!!!

[Mark_Fine]

There is a difference (or at least there can be) between a great test of golf and a great golf course.  The set up for the PGA offered the players a great test of "American-style" golf but it would not be one 99% of us would want to play everyday.  It was very one dimensional and very penal.  The thing that was missing from the equation and purposely so, was the chance for great recovery shots.  They could be had, but only on rare occasions.  With a set up like this, luck is minimized in the overall scheme of things.  

[Andy]

Matt, I agree that Oak Hill was a bit too penal with the rough, but that is a mistake the USGA must have made 20 of the last 25 years.  I think they have had full shot penalties in most years...my personal favorite setup was Pinehurst where I think they nailed it.  I don't think the PGA really even narrowed the fairways at Oak Hill, but think the rough was a full shot penalty, unless, of course, you hit it where the gallery had tromped it down.  Therein lies part of the my issue with lots of rough on these courses, the fact that a really bad shot ends up better than a slight misshit.  Back to the point of this, however, I think Els and Woods are much closer to correct than Paul Casey, whose words just seem ridiculous.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark --

There is skill in making fine recoveries and I have to question what the PGA was thinking since their set-ups over the last few years have been universally praised for being so well prepared to accentuate the total skills in playing -- not just repetitive Scott Simpson / Cal Peete type driving.

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't think the fairness of the course, whatever that might mean to various contestants, has really been the issue on the series of threads today.  The issue has been the lack of strategic values reflected in the decision-making of the players, and the relative lack of interest generated by a tournament in which there is no real chance for great last round heroics.

Woods and Els are obviously talking about something totally different than Casey.  What that something IS is open to debate, but the less than compelling nature of the tournament really isn't.

[John Nixon]

Perhaps Tiger and Ernie are commenting on the relative lack of unforseeable bounces and bad breaks from the course, as opposed to, say, some of the Open courses. That, to them makes it "fair" because a good shot will most likely not be incongruously penalized, and a poor shot will be punished, albeit severely.

Casey seems to be complaining that he had to play patiently and within himself.

[Dan Herrmann]

Paul Casey should've spent his time at the Oak Hill bowling alleys (they really have them!)....  

[cary lichtenstein]

I wouldn't want to play a course set up like that more than once. What is the point? It's just how many fairways you can hit and how many you would like to chip out of.

Praying that if you miss a green you can land in a bunker and not the grass.

My hats off to the final 4, they played great and I found the tournament exciting even without the best players being in contention. I have no problem with one tournament being set up like this, although I thought this was a US Open setup.

But to play this everyday and call it a great golf course, it may be a great course, but not set up this way for the average Joe. I want to enjoy my golf, not punished by it.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Personally, I don't think for one minute that both Els or Woods are being any bit honest in their comments. They are trying not to assign blame on the course or any incident regarding their inability to win the tournament. The only thing they are thinking is get me the frick out of here, I want to get on my plane and leave ASAP!

So all of those press conferences, well, I think all of them are total BS, because they are thinking about getting in and out of there without incident or comment that might affect them later on and could be futher conjured up on sports talk shows throughout the country all week.

I think what you are hearing are safe, somewhat politically correct answers when they are actually pretty pissed off at their performance of not winning. The thing I respect the most about these guys are their level of competitiveness.

[Paul Richards]

The amazing thing to me is that Oak Hill and Olympia Fields - North are such similar courses - and, yet, Oak Hill comes out smelling like a rose and OFCC got pounded!

OFCC did have rough like Oak Hill's - all the way until Tuesday night when the USGA decided to cut it down to 3.5 inches.  

And, of course, the weather wasn't very kind to OFCC.

Otherwise, the courses are similar in that they are both very big, strong championship courses, with too many trees.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

I am simply tired of rough so deep around the putting surfaces that the only recovery is a blast shot.  

Is this as imaginative as the PGA can be?  Or are simply trying to sell sand wedges?

[Chris Kane]

I seem to be the only person in this discussion group who found the PGA incredibly boring.  It was the most boring major championship I've ever seen, by a wide margin.

I still don't understand the infatuation of the USGA/PGA with thick rough right next to the greens: besides providing a totally one-dimensional set of recovery options, it isn't fair (despite what people say).  Why?  Because every shot that misses the green gets stuck into the thick stuff.  It doesn't differentiate between a shot that just trickles from the green, and the shot that takes one bounce and kicks forward off the green.  Both balls end up in around the same spot, with similar degrees of difficulty.

I just hated how a missed fairway would almost always result in a two-putt bogey from 15ft, because the only safe play, most of the time, was to blast it out.

I'm sure there's a great course at Oak Hill (buried under the rough), but the course I saw on television could have been anything.  The only thing that distinguished it was the green complexes.

[A.G._Crockett]

Chris Kane,
I think there are very few on GCA that DIDN'T find the PGA boring!  
A golf course that doesn't look like it would be fun to play isn't much fun to watch others play on either.

[Tom_Doak]

I didn't think it was a boring event.  You had four guys battling it out down the stretch, hitting a lot of great shots when everyone knew any slip-up would mean a bogey.  They weren't the marquee names, but that didn't make it unexciting.

On the other hand, it was a very boring golf tournament if you wanted to see golf architecture "win."  The course setup completely overruled whatever golf architecture Oak Hill had to offer.  

It's been a long time since I played there in college, but it's a near-ideal parkland property, and I would be willing to bet if they had set it up much tamer it would have been every bit as exciting.  Unfortunately, a lot of these guys who set up major tournament courses have an agenda of their own, and are afraid or unwilling to let a great venue sort out the field on its own.

[Tom_Doak]

Oh, and Tommy is dead right.  Woods and Els are just trying to get out of there without being seen to blame the golf course for their failures ... the same way that politicians "take full responsibility" for their errors.

I wish I could see how Tiger and Ernie voted on the top 100 courses in the world ... if they voted, which they do not.  I'll bet Oak Hill wouldn't be getting any "top ten" votes from the pros.

[Glen_Fergo]

I think many of the responses here are spot on.

The event was boring and seemed to go against the general thought that the tournament (and in particular a major) should be won by the best golfer/s .

 ::)The element of luck on this course with the rough being so penal made recovery shots almost non-existent. Moreso once a player had to pitch out it almost automatically meant a bogey because to attack a tight pin in that situation could have led to a double/triple bogey or worse.

You folks in the US are lucky to have many of the best golf courses in the world and certainly far more quality courses than any other country. Why can't such events be played at courses that don't need to be tricked up to the extent this one was? Oak Hill has proven a worthy challenge in the past so what if the scores are lower!!

The PGA over the years seems to have been the event that throws up the most surprise winners (excluding Steve Elkington and Wayne Grady of course)!

Is that because it always seems to be trying to live down its ranking as number 4 of the majors? Less than memorable courses and strange set ups.

 ;)Anyway lets look forward to Whistling Straits next year and hope they just fine tune a very good course by giving it firm fast greens reasonable rough (that allows recovery shots but takes away full control) and rewards all around shotmaking not just length or accuracy of driving, or a makes for a putting competition etc.

[MainelyJack]

I have played Oak Hill (in the 1970's) and have been a spectator at the 1968 US Open and the 1980 PGA for all four rounds and all practice rounds and I have always considered it to be a classic and classy layout. The course I saw on TV reminded me of the course I knew, but it had been changed in ways that I did not find appealing. The length of the rough, as most have noted was way over the top. With the length of many of their holes and the narrowness of the landing area off the tee much of the spontaniety of a round of tournament golf was gone. Hit it in the deep stuff and it's 90% chance of being a bogey. Miss the green (by a foot) and hope for the best on getting it close with a lob wedge.

I haven't seen the statistics, but to my mind any tournament usually comes down to putting and Shaun Macheel dropped a mile of pressure putts while some of the better known names might as well have been putting with the cover on.

I enjoyed the last round. The competition was good and the match was close. Just because it wasn't Tiger or Ernie or Sergio fighting it out is of no interest to me. Those that were adapting to the conditions the best were and they made for entertaining golf.

I expect they will be cutting the rough with a hay baler most of this week.

[JLahrman]

Tom:  I think that's what Chris was trying to say.  Most any tournament will be exciting when you have several guys playing well and a challenging course.  The course setup was what was boring.

I forget which pro it was, but when asked which is the best course they play each year he said "The course that hosts the US Open, before the USGA gets hold of it."

There is a lot of support for Shinnecock as the US Open site on this forum, and rightfully so.  But my favorite setup was Pinehurst.  The rough got cut down, players could still have a hack at the green from 200 yards out...and the winning score was still the same.  I remember Vijay trying to make a late birdie or two and firing at the 16th hole on Sunday from the rough.  He butchered it and made bogey, but it was far more exciting to see him have a chance to get it there and make birdie rather than seeing the usual chop it out, wedge it on, two putt bogey.

[cepheus]

I can not believe people would talk so much about the rough at Oak Hill. It was mowed twice during the week at the request of the PGA. I always thought that the ones who kept it in the short grass were to be rewarded in golf tournaments. And yes recovery shots are important but the man who won didn't seem to have that much trouble.  I think people expected some big name to win and when they didn't, people were disappointed somewhat. But say what you want about how boring the course was, or design skewed by conditions, the scoreboard and resistance to par spoke for itself. I work at a course that has a PGA event and I could set up the course where no one would come close to shooting par (and that is exciting to me). It is my opinion that golf course won the PGA Tournament and I can't wait until Whistiing Straits tears into the pros next year.  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Cepheus,
Welcome to the GCA.

If they indeed cut the rough at Oak Hill, then they:

1-Didn't do it enough
2-Completely used the wonderful Donald Ross bunkering opposite of what it was designed for--a saving area when off-line.

No one is complaining about Oak Hill the course, but more about Oak Hill the set-up. Also include how much the layout has been compromised by equipment dynamics that have rendered this type of set-up--Nikita Kruschev Golf, "We will bury you."

There is nothing wrong with everyone having a differing opinion of how tough or scoring prevailiant a course should play. The question is just how extreme do you let it get. It's like Democrats and Republicans/Liberals and Conservatives, and no common good is ever found simply because of close-mindeness and the inability to understand that bunkers are bad to be in; rough grass is a little harder to play from; and fairway target areas should be more then 23 yards across. I don't think Donald Ross would have ever been able to comprehend Oak Hill playing like that. (But that's me speculating)

[Chris Kane]

Cepheus,
There was criticism on this forum of the Oak Hill setup long before the champion had been decided.  From memory, it started almost as soon as the tournament came onto the television during round one.

I really liked what Tom Doak said in The Anatomy of a Golf Course, words to the effect of "golf shouldn't be like an obstacle course, cutting the golfer down for one mistake".  Thats my objection to this PGA setup, it severely punished even the slightest mistakes, and made the golf played very predictable.  We didn't get to see the great recovery shots that distinguish the best players in the world.