Does this make you want to play Hoylake?

[Sean_A]

My perspective is that Hoylake is a great course, but not a course one can immediately fall in love with.  I must have played the course 8 times over 20 years and I still have more respect than love for Hoylake.  I give it extra points because of the great use of OBB and think its a dog gone shame to see Dowie and Royal neutered.   I think we were all hugely lucky in 2006 in that narrow fairways (is there Open rota links with consistently wide fairways?) were not such a big issue because the course was so burned out.  That said, the rough looks like it is coming along after a very wet several months.  There are whispy spots and horrible spots.  The bunkering is for the most part is quite reasonable.  There are a few heavy handed areas, but the terrain is mainly flat and needs the hand of man to help it along.  Guys can pull awkward lies, just enough to mean many of the bunkers are to be avoided.  My biggest issue in terms of an Open Championship is the course isn't quite firery enough.  Wide is not something I worry about for championship play at a place like Hoylake - because its mainly flat!  If its daily play, well then yes, width is a huge issue and unfortunately this problem is not going away soon. If folks want to play Hoylake, go in the off season when the rough is down.  The course plays very well because it has magnificent turf. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am yet to play Hoylake.

I've a feeling I would love it.

[Adam Lawrence]

Based on a couple of days walking round the golf course (home now) I think people are way overstating this 'the course is green' meme. It is only too green if you compare it to 2006, a standard by which virtually every course in recent Open history would be too green. There was an excellent interview with links superintendent Craig Gilholm in one of the greenkeeping magazines recently, in which he described 2006 as an experiment in what would happen if he just stopped watering the golf course. So to produce those conditions took a dry spring and burning hot summer, combined with virtually no additional watering. That isn't replicable to order!

The course is browning out nicely - the rough, as has been noted, is thick in places, wispy in others. I would like the greens a tad firmer personally, but that's really about it. Plenty of roll in the fairways - which are no different from any other Open in their width.

As ever with Opens, we just need some wind. After an early morning course walk yesterday, I said to a friend that I expected to see a 65 yesterday, and if Rory had birdied 18 we would have done. The cut line will be low, but on a par 72 course with four par fives that are all good birdie holes, so it should be.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I can't find much love for Hoylake and I wonder if it is because I am just not familiar with the course. I have been watching the Open since 1973 and have been to most of the venues so kinda know every hump n hollow, but never Hoylake which is only getting it's second start in nearly 50 years.

Does look very very green on TV, very narrow and in very good nick, the approaches and green surrounds especially.

[Niall C]

I woke up early to watch the coverage this morning.  What was I confronted with?  Interesting greens with very narrow fairways flanked by thick fescue.  Thank god there was no wind.  I know this is an Open setup and it's been a wet spring, but personally I now have zero interest in playing this course.  Maybe that's OK, this is a Championship track and I'm just an average hack, yada yada yada.  Now I hear that The Old Course has narrowed things up and has bunkers buried in rough?!!!  WTF is happening?  Even in the home of links golf, they just don't get it?  Have they succumbed to the American Affliction of measuring their manhood by course difficulty?  Talk amongst yourselves...

Jud

As you rightly allude, it's set up for the Open and it's also dependant on growing conditions. I certainly wouldn't let this put you off visiting if I was you. Once that rough gets trampled down by feet and beaten down by the weather it won't be the issue it is at the moment. I recall doing a bit of marshalling at Turnberry in 2009, and they were quite keen to keep us out of the rough as they wanted to keep it "pristine" for the players. You and I won't get that "luxury".

Niall

[Phil McDade]

I woke up early to watch the coverage this morning.  What was I confronted with?  Interesting greens with very narrow fairways flanked by thick fescue.  Thank god there was no wind.  I know this is an Open setup and it's been a wet spring, but personally I now have zero interest in playing this course.  Maybe that's OK, this is a Championship track and I'm just an average hack, yada yada yada.  Now I hear that The Old Course has narrowed things up and has bunkers buried in rough?!!!  WTF is happening?  Even in the home of links golf, they just don't get it?  Have they succumbed to the American Affliction of measuring their manhood by course difficulty?  Talk amongst yourselves...

Jud:

Yet you've recommend folks traveling abroad play Carnoustie, which might be the poster boy for penal golf when set up for an Open Championship (I walked it entirely in '99 when it hosted the Open; I've never seen a more narrow, overtly penal golf course than Carnoustie as it was set up that year).

[Niall C]

Jud,

I would wager that the average Brit has no better understanding of proper architecture than the average Yank.

Even at my links the fairways are considerably pinched on a number of holes in a way which would have been unimaginable twenty years ago. What I find particularly interesting is that the best holes on the course remain undamaged while the holes recently identified as weak in a report by MacKenzie and Ebert have been bastardized by narrowing the corridors, suggesting a knee jerk reaction which assumed that a lack of width, rather than making those holes more bland, would make them far more interesting.

I wrote at length to the committee about it and apparently my essay was well received. I now await an action plan......

The point is, everything I had to say clearly came as a complete surprise to the committee. It's a Tom Simpson links and yet no one seemingly knew what that really meant, so your assertion about people not getting it is most definitely accurate.

Paul

What do you think being a Tom Simpson links really means ?

Also in another post you refer to having just rejoined the club in the last 5 months. Assuming the course was as it is now then why did you join if you hate it so much ?

Niall

[Mark Bourgeois]

I did a workout/group class this week with a formerly ranked #1 in the world Middleweight Boxer. He is roughly my age and is simply a significantly superior athlete to me. His speed, stamina and flexibility is simply at a different level even on my best days in the past.

Stop wasting your time with boxers, Mike. If you want the strength to hit out of Open rough then football players are where it's at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8GTPI797OwU#t=6

[Brent Hutto]

If you define "getting it" as toeing the Golf Club Atlas party line it's no stretch to say that 99.9% of the golf world does not "get it". So you've found some like-minded individuals on an Internet forum, sharing your own quirky set of preferences, expectations and sentimental wish-list items. That's all good fun but don't expect it to hold much water among the governance of a typical golf club.

[Niall C]

Anyone who thinks this is a Hoylake problem, a Rota problem, an R&A problem, or a links problem has not been paying attention.

This is a GLOBAL problem. Older courses around the world have been blighted by the loss of width. The problem is pandemic.

I have posted several times on this and am committed to what may be a Sisyphean exercise but so be it: the loss of width on old courses remains the greatest unnoticed crime of our age.

Disagree on a number of points. Having acres and acres of unneeded cut grass does not in itself make a course interesting or indeed add strategic value. When there are cries for making golf more sustainable and reducing the length of new courses, creating redundant acres of short grass to add width is nonsensical. Comparing maintenance practices back then and now also seems redundant unless you want to go back to having sheep roam your course.

Niall

[Jud_T]

Niall,

Why is width unneeded?  Can you hit a 40 yard dogleg fairway in a 30 MPH cross wind with any consistency?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Niall

I am referring specifically to the loss of width on older courses. In other words, courses originally designed for more width than today. Generically speaking, far as sustainability it's an interesting question. If restoration of width is included as part of a broader sustainability program (eg less fertilizer, less watering), then I would be surprised if that did not produce a net benefit.

ALSO, getting back to the Open discussion, I would be surprised if the rough at Hoylake this year was purely the product of Mother Nature. (Forgive me if that is somewhere else in the thread.) So consider the expense of those efforts.

Also, Jud raises a good point regarding *effective* width. On a firm and fast links forget what you see.

[Dean Stokes]

I was just about to start a thread about how awesome this course looks on tv. It looks plenty wide to me and I haven't heard one played complain like they did at Carnoustie years ago.
It seems to me that some of you would like no rough at all so you can never miss a fairway and always play well As far as I am aware golf is not supposed to be easy and it takes practice/skill to keep it in the fairway and miss the oh so deep/steep bunkers.  I spoke to some friends who are there and their view is that the course is tremendous and the set up is very fair. Cheers.

[Bill_McBride]

Hoylake is a wonderful course that was great fun when we played several rounds during the 2006 Buda Cup.  Even though Pat Mucci hasn't played there, I think he would encourage you to give it a go. 

The rough was not grown out as it is today even though we were there a scant eight weeks after the Open.

[jeffwarne]

I woke up early to watch the coverage this morning.  What was I confronted with?  Interesting greens with very narrow fairways flanked by thick fescue.  Thank god there was no wind.  I know this is an Open setup and it's been a wet spring, but personally I now have zero interest in playing this course.  Maybe that's OK, this is a Championship track and I'm just an average hack, yada yada yada.  Now I hear that The Old Course has narrowed things up and has bunkers buried in rough?!!!  WTF is happening?  Even in the home of links golf, they just don't get it?  Have they succumbed to the American Affliction of measuring their manhood by course difficulty?  Talk amongst yourselves...

Jud
Agreed
Was there yesterday.
That said, the rough was far less penal than The Island in Regional Qualifying and Gailes Links in Final Qualifying.
And the fairways were substantially wider at Hoylake than The Island.
A horrible trend.
Followed Bubba Phil and Ernie and got to watch irons all day off the tee
But as long as folks don't stand up and say enough about the equipment, that's what we'll continue to get.
I basically comes down to what club do you want to watch them hit 280?
Driver or 3 iron?

[Steve Salmen]

I did not see much of the 2006 Open but watching this on TV makes me really want to play the course.  There appears to be a lot of similarities with Pinehurst and run off around the greens.  The greens look plenty large and don't have ridiculous break.  Honestly,  I think Muirfield is more narrow but I have not played Liverpool.  Please let me know if I'm wrong.

[Sean_A]

Steve

I could be wrong, but I think Muirfield has a bit wider fairways, but more punishing rough and more bunkering.

Ciao

[Paul Gray]

Niall,

1) The plans Simpson left behind coupled with all the other evidence complied from the 1930's would be a start.

2) The changes are recent and, as it's the course I grew up at, my heart's in the place.

I do hope I've passed your test. Perhaps now you can continue to explain to the rest of us why width is overrated.

[Niall C]

I woke up early to watch the coverage this morning.  What was I confronted with?  Interesting greens with very narrow fairways flanked by thick fescue.  Thank god there was no wind.  I know this is an Open setup and it's been a wet spring, but personally I now have zero interest in playing this course.  Maybe that's OK, this is a Championship track and I'm just an average hack, yada yada yada.  Now I hear that The Old Course has narrowed things up and has bunkers buried in rough?!!!  WTF is happening?  Even in the home of links golf, they just don't get it?  Have they succumbed to the American Affliction of measuring their manhood by course difficulty?  Talk amongst yourselves...

Jud:

Yet you've recommend folks traveling abroad play Carnoustie, which might be the poster boy for penal golf when set up for an Open Championship (I walked it entirely in '99 when it hosted the Open; I've never seen a more narrow, overtly penal golf course than Carnoustie as it was set up that year).

Phil

I was at Carnoustie all four days of the championship and I was also there for 2 of the 3 practice days. The rough was like how Adam has described Hoylake which is patchy, wispy in some places and thicker in others. It did have some pinch points but if you were silly enough to take them on then hell mend you. One of the biggest moaners at Carnosutie was Duval. Followed him in a practice round and he wasn't interested in hitting anything off the fairway irrespective of whether it was whispy or not. He just didn't have his mind in the right place and others seemed to take their cue from him. As Nicklaus has said, he used to love hearing other players bitch about a course because he knew they were no competition.

If I was comparing Carnoustie to say Turnberry the last time it was there, I really wouldn't say there was too much of a difference in the set up.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall,

Why is width unneeded?  Can you hit a 40 yard dogleg fairway in a 30 MPH cross wind with any consistency?

Jud

Perhaps one day we'll have a game, then you would see that I have difficulty hitting a 40 yd wide fairway (not sure what the dog-leg reference means) in the dead calm never mind with a wind. I am not a first class golfer, just an ordinary hack, but I disagree with the notion that the course should be adjusted for the advent of windy days and whatever other temporary conditions prevail. That's like having stabilisers on your bicycle. I personally think the game is about adapting to the circumstances some of which will be seasonal like thick rough and hard firm conditions while others such as wind will vary on a continuous basis. To continue the bicycle analogy, if you tried to go round a corner in wet conditions as fast as you might in dry conditions you would likely fall off you're bike. So what's the answer, slow down or dry the road ?

In a similar vein I disagree with Jeff's criticism of not being able to hit driver all the time. Everyone lauded Tiger when he hit iron all the way round Hoylake the last time, yet somehow if everyone else follows suit that proves the set up is wrong?! That doesn't make sense to me. To me it shows the players using some course management rather than pulling out the driver as a matter of course.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall

I am referring specifically to the loss of width on older courses. In other words, courses originally designed for more width than today. Generically speaking, far as sustainability it's an interesting question. If restoration of width is included as part of a broader sustainability program (eg less fertilizer, less watering), then I would be surprised if that did not produce a net benefit.

ALSO, getting back to the Open discussion, I would be surprised if the rough at Hoylake this year was purely the product of Mother Nature. (Forgive me if that is somewhere else in the thread.) So consider the expense of those efforts.

Also, Jud raises a good point regarding *effective* width. On a firm and fast links forget what you see.

Mark,

I suspect this might be one of those discussions/arguments where the difference in position is more about comparing apples to oranges ie. the US to UK ? As far as the UK is concerned I'd love to know what width fairways were when they stopped having the help of sheep to do some of the mowing  . Bear in mind also the relatively small acreage that those old courses are/were on.

Again from a UK perspective, I'd suggest the average amount of maintenance money spent on a UK course would be less than say the average US (country club ?) course. Of the 3 links I've been a member at, none have had more than half a dozen greenkeepers, and all are top 100 UK. Indeed one of them had 5 or 6 to look after two full size 18 hole courses. Being links there aren't a lot of fertilisers used compared to average US course I would think. As for Hoylake, I would think they have used some help in select places, I know they did at Carnoustie.

Niall

[jeffwarne]

Null
My criticisms aren't so much aimed at Hoylake but rather the governing bodies allowing equipment to get so hot that when confronted by a narrow setup,
players can simply hit 3-4 iron adequate distances to still have manageable approaches in.
I'd rather see par "defended" (if they must)at the equipment  level rather than with silly narrowing a la the USGA.
The scale is so out of whack.
Long par 4s used to have 45 yard fairway on 440 yard holes.
Now its 18-25 yards on a 490 par 4.

Whats next? Sets with no woods and 11 wedges?

[Jud_T]

I woke up early to watch the coverage this morning.  What was I confronted with?  Interesting greens with very narrow fairways flanked by thick fescue.  Thank god there was no wind.  I know this is an Open setup and it's been a wet spring, but personally I now have zero interest in playing this course.  Maybe that's OK, this is a Championship track and I'm just an average hack, yada yada yada.  Now I hear that The Old Course has narrowed things up and has bunkers buried in rough?!!!  WTF is happening?  Even in the home of links golf, they just don't get it?  Have they succumbed to the American Affliction of measuring their manhood by course difficulty?  Talk amongst yourselves...

Jud:

Yet you've recommend folks traveling abroad play Carnoustie, which might be the poster boy for penal golf when set up for an Open Championship (I walked it entirely in '99 when it hosted the Open; I've never seen a more narrow, overtly penal golf course than Carnoustie as it was set up that year).

Phil,

Fair enough.  Carnoustie was a surprise for me as it was a tough Championship layout that was still playable and enjoyable for us average hacks (the course record was, however, safe).  I don't recall rough or width being a problem at all, and we played in stronger winds than they have this week.  Vis-a-vis Hoylake, perhaps for member play width is not an issue (although it certainly seems to be a less expansive property than Carnoustie).  I was on the fence as to whether I'd make an effort to play it before this week and now I'm firmly in the camp of skipping it, that's all.  But it seems as if this is a trend that goes beyond pro events on either side of the pond.  Perhaps the cost of maintenance is a serious issue.  If one assumes there's a fixed acreage of turf that can be maintained at a reasonable cost, when you lengthen courses out by definition width must be sacrificed.  I thought this was less of an issue on sand based courses with cool season grasses.  Now the Old Course has bunkers buried in rough with no Open for a year.  Something is amiss...

[Mark Chaplin]

Jud I must have been playing a different Old Course 6 weeks ago.