Mike Clayton and Geoff Shackelford Talk Royal Melbourne and Riviera

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Wow Jim, you got through a whole half episode before launching into your windbaggery here. Thanks so much! You're a tribute to the game.

Seriously, this is not that complicated. Riviera is a kikuyu golf course with sponge approach, with every single element of its maintenance is manipulated with precision. They don't often get to have green firmness as hard as they want and maybe got a tad excited. It just wasn't fun to see good shots not able to hold the green. And how do I know they were good shots? Because the only other landing spot option would have been a layup in the best bunker to attack the hole on the next shot.  When only 3 of 10 on the PGA Tour are hitting the green some days, something is a bit off. Especially on a 311 yard hole in a game where nearly every player can hit fly driver that far.

[Peter Pallotta]

G - your 2nd paragraph is well-enough reasoned and as clear as a bell. Your 1st sentence/paragraph is waspish and misdirected. Besides finding Jim to be amongst the sanest and most measured posters around, I dare say he's forgotten more about playing golf at the highest levels than you or I will ever know.
P

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Thanks PPalotta. Oddly, I haven't seen Jim's name on the field list at Riviera in the Northern Trust Open so I'll take his thoughts on how Riviera played with a grain of salt. But maybe he was out there watching the balls hit the green with tons of spin and still roll into the bunkers because they were rolling 13 instead of 12.2. I was and I stand by my view, mischaracterized by his "waspish" post that they were just a bit much in speed and firmness.

[Sean_A]

David

If we are talking about green speeds I can get on board...even to the point of saying 11 is too high.  But if we are talking firmness, I stick with "firm as mother nature reasonably allows without spending loads extra on green keeping".  I can't see the point in running up the firmness flag every bloody day, then when the course is firm to haul the flag at half mast.  Some days courses will be too firm for whoever's sense of ideal and some days they will be too soft...we should accept that with open arms.

Ciao    

Sean, Have you listened the podcast?   If not, I recommend it.  There is no admonition against firm conditions. There is no demand for soft greens. That is Kavanaugh's fiction, but he didn't even listen to the podcast.

As Mike explained it, RM is an extremely firm course, and he appreciates that and isn't looking to change it.  I'd be willing to bet that Mike's 8/10 recommendation on his hypothetical firmness scale would thrill this crowd and is probably more firmness that most golfers (at least American golfers) have ever experienced.

And Geoff and Mike aren't talking about green firmness generally, nor are they talking about variance in everyday playing conditions.  They are talking about the intentional and controlled set-up, including green speeds, for particular tournaments.  In Riviera's case at least the setup (combined with recent changes) seemed designed to trick up the hole and push scores higher.  \Surely Geoff and Mike ought to be able to address the setup at these tournaments without being accused of launching a conspiracy pushing soft, splat and stop greens.

We all agree that firmness is a good thing, but Mike and Geoff have been advocating firm conditions long before most here ever discovered gca.com.   Not sure why some are acting as if it is otherwise.

David

I am not sure what you are on about.  My comments are in the main about daily set-up being used for tournamnet play and that the daily set-up should be as reasonably firm as mother nature allows without spending a ton extra on greenkeeping.  I never wrote about about conspiracy, soft greens or whatever else you are implying.  If you read my frst post I also wrote that designs should fit the desired and achievable green keeping conditions of f&f as is reasonably possible.  But before people get all crazy, if mother nature is guiding the greenkeeping set-up with minimal green keeping inputs, we must accept that sometimes greens will be too soft or too hard to fit any particular sense of "ideal".  I don't much see the point in criticising the firmness of greens if it was acheived wihout harming the turf. On the other hand, green speeds are open season.  Why not FIRST slow down greens to help off-set a really firm course instead of looking for ways to soften a course? For some reason, green speeds are a sacred cow and we opt to tinker with firmness...this approach doesn't make much sense to me.  

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

David

If we are talking about green speeds I can get on board...even to the point of saying 11 is too high.  But if we are talking firmness, I stick with "firm as mother nature reasonably allows without spending loads extra on green keeping".  I can't see the point in running up the firmness flag every bloody day, then when the course is firm to haul the flag at half mast.  Some days courses will be too firm for whoever's sense of ideal and some days they will be too soft...we should accept that with open arms.

Ciao   

A great post Sean. I agree 100%

Jon

[Mark Pearce]

Again Sean seems to be talking more sense than most of the "experts".

This does all rather highlight the continued idiocy of chasing after green speeds that were never intended.  As to firmness, I agree with Sean, let greens be as firm as Mother Nature wants.  The challenge is to find a way to play and score in the conditions.  As JK has pointed out Lydia Ko, at least, found a way to adapt.

[JESII]

Well, there's an interesting juxtaposition of a class response in post 99 to whatever that was in 100...

The problem with wanting every decent looking shot rewarded, or at least not punished, is that you must then err on the side of too soft to accomplish that. When 3 woods end up past the green on a par 4, I see no problem demanding the guy hitting it knows what he's doing.

Mike and Geoff are both rightly defensive of these two courses. In my opinion, it's a good thing to piss off the pros once in a while. These two events brought some misguided criticism home however many people thought it was great to watch, especially when someone found a way to handle it.

[DMoriarty]

Sean, what I'm "on about" are the podcast, which is the topic of the thread, and comments that seem to have missed the point. You may want to give it a listen.

[Jason Way]

On the other hand, green speeds are open season.  Why not FIRST slow down greens to help off-set a really firm course instead of looking for ways to soften a course? For some reason, green speeds are a sacred cow and we opt to tinker with firmness...this approach doesn't make much sense to me.  

I agree with this completely, and from what I heard in his comments on the podcast, so does Mike Clayton.  In his comments on RM, he was not talking about firmness or green speed, each in its own little vacuum.  He was pointing out that the combination of the two (really firm and really fast) might have been over the line, from his perspective on the ground.  Further, he specifically pointed out that an easy fix is to dial back the SPEED.  I still fail to see how his comments are out of line with what we consistently espouse here.  

When held up to the GCA.com ideals of course setup, Sean is right on the money here AND he happens to be agreeing with the point that Mike was making in the podcast in the first place (that has been subsequently twisted into a pretzel).  

[David Stamm]

It's amazing that Mike and Geoff are receiving criticism over remarks over these two courses.

Mike has probably played RM more than everyone else on this board COMBINED. And understands MacKenzie's design philosophy as well as anyone.


Geoff knows Riviera better than anyone else on this board.

Amazing.

[DMoriarty]

What Jason just wrote is what I've been trying, ineptly, to say.  

[BCowan]

On the other hand, green speeds are open season.  Why not FIRST slow down greens to help off-set a really firm course instead of looking for ways to soften a course? For some reason, green speeds are a sacred cow and we opt to tinker with firmness...this approach doesn't make much sense to me.  

I agree with this completely, and from what I heard in his comments on the podcast, so does Mike Clayton.  In his comments on RM, he was not talking about firmness or green speed, each in its own little vacuum.  He was pointing out that the combination of the two (really firm and really fast) might have been over the line, from his perspective on the ground.  Further, he specifically pointed out that an easy fix is to dial back the SPEED.  I still fail to see how his comments are out of line with what we consistently espouse here.  

When held up to the GCA.com ideals of course setup, Sean is right on the money here AND he happens to be agreeing with the point that Mike was making in the podcast in the first place (that has been subsequently twisted into a pretzel).  

+3

David,

   We are talking about set up for a tourney.  The elephant in the room is Green Speed.  How dare we slow greens down, when we can just make things slightly softer.  Amazing how much people tow the line.

[Don Mahaffey]

It's amazing that Mike and Geoff are receiving criticism over remarks over these two courses.

Mike has probably played RM more than everyone else on this board COMBINED. And understands MacKenzie's design philosophy as well as anyone.


Geoff knows Riviera better than anyone else on this board.

Amazing.

Anymore around here is isn't about the message, it is about the messenger.

They both said the set up was incorrect, and they both said firmness was part of the problem.

How digging into that became an attack on them and why when both are in the room so many felt the need to run to their defense is what is amazing.

The question I have, with both being so influential, what are they doing about these disharmonious set ups besides talking about it on their podcasts.


Geoff is a mainstream golf journalist who is in the PGA tour media room and frequently on the golf channel. Is he taking this message there as forcefully as he gave it to Jim Sullivan.  

It is an honest question as I do not know the answer.

[David Stamm]

It's amazing that Mike and Geoff are receiving criticism over remarks over these two courses.

Mike has probably played RM more than everyone else on this board COMBINED. And understands MacKenzie's design philosophy as well as anyone.


Geoff knows Riviera better than anyone else on this board.

Amazing.

Anymore around here is isn't about the message, it is about the messenger.

They both said the set up was incorrect, and they both said firmness was part of the problem.

How digging into that became an attack on them and why when both are in the room so many felt the need to run to their defense is what is amazing.

The question I have, with both being so influential, what are they doing about these disharmonious set ups besides talking about it on their podcasts.


Geoff is a mainstream golf journalist who is in the PGA tour media room and frequently on the golf channel. Is he taking this message there as forcefully as he gave it to Jim Sullivan.  

It is an honest question as I do not know the answer.

Don, there are comments made on this thread from individuals that have not even listened to the podcast. I find THAT amazing.

[Brent Hutto]

Anymore around here is isn't about the message, it is about the messenger.

Don,

My interpretation of Ran's recent guidance on how this forum is to be used going forward was that it's very much about the messenger.

I also read his comments to mean that we should stick to commenting on thing we're qualified to comment on and I am trying my best to do that. So in that vein, my comments on the Royal Melbourne and Riviera setups are quite limited. Two things really.

1) I thought the recent setups resulting in compelling TV viewing and demonstrated good tests of golf.

2) The broadcast of those tournaments made me very much wish to play each course, although I know that will never happen.

If designated experts express less positive comments on the firmness of those two venues, then I'm happy to assume those are honestly held opinions from their perspectives. But for instance Mike Clayton's extensive playing experience at RM if anything means his opinions are based on things that do not pertain to me as a mere "retail golfer" so to speak.

And I do share the worry of Sean and others that putting forward the idea that a course like Royal Melbourne can play too firm (especially given that it looked no such thing to me watching from 10,000 miles away) may have an unintended consequence of watering down the long-term message that Firm And Fast Is Good which so many of us preach on a daily basis. Excuse the pun.

[Don Mahaffey]

Brent,
I'm just trying to stay on point.
Early in this thread I asked if the greens being too firm at each venue should spark an architecture discussion. It did not and has turned into a he said/he heard/he listened argument with all sorts of positions being taken.

There are sacred cows in golf, and RM and Riviera are among them. Thus, softening the greens, even if slightly, seems to be the opinion expressed by the experts vs talking about why "architecturally" the greens were to firm for the tournament played.

The above comment is sure to make the hair stand up on the back of somebody's neck, but isn't this what is being said by these experts?  

David, people here comment about courses they've never seen, clubs where they've never walked in the front door, and GCA members they've never met.  In this thread, both Geoff and Mike have weighed in, are we not allowed to discuss what they posted? (I have listened to the SOG podcast, in fact I've listened to all of them)

[Jason Thurman]

Don, I think the reason that the discussion about the architecture hasn't broken out is because the criticism of the course setups weren't rooted in architecture. The criticism was instead based on player reactions.

Mike Clayton clearly stated that Royal Melbourne's setup wouldn't make players want to return. Geoff Shackelford talked about how Riviera's 10th has lost its luster in the eyes of players.

Royal Melbourne has taken a fair amount of flak from pro golfers in recent years. I recall a Golf Channel studio piece not long ago in which some LPGA player talked about how it's a course that doesn't reward good shots, to which her studio partner replied by rolling his eyes and calling it a "typical Tour pro response" before discussing why the features she criticized were exactly what made it such a great test of ballstriking. Lydia Ko hit all but 8 (!) greens over the course of the tournament at Royal Melbourne. Mike Clayton suggested that the course was set up to be too difficult for a large portion of the field. If that's the case, I'd suggest they go practice. The course was playable. Several players broke par. I don't know why I'm supposed to care if several of the ones who struggled don't return.

Golfers have blamed courses and course setups for their own ineptitude for years. The result has been an ongoing quest for "fairness" that has resulted in flattened greens, graduated rough, perfectly manicured bunkers, and a commitment to conditions that allow balls to stop where they drop. In the process, the game has become less interesting to play and less interesting to watch. On that handful of occasions a year when players on television are required to judge rollout on their shots and place the ball in strategic locations or risk embarrassment, I'm more inclined to applaud than deride.

[DMoriarty]

How digging into that became an attack on them and why when both are in the room so many felt the need to run to their defense is what is amazing.

Don, the reason people came to Mike and Geoff's defense is because of the absurdity of some of the shots being fired at them. Here is the first line Kavanaugh posted: "Well some of your hero thought leaders now want every green soft so we can watch darts.  Must be true."  And it got worse from there. He followed that up with nonsensical allusions to some vague Golf Digest conspiracy and a bunch of other crap, all without ever having listened to the podcast.

There have been some more sane responses and some interesting comments and perspectives, but Kavanaugh set the tone, and unfortunately others seem to have bought into his suggestion that Mike Clayton's thoughts on RM and Geoff Shackelford's thoughts on Riviera are aimed at making every green too soft.  That just isn't the case.  
______________________________________________

Jason, I don't think it accurate to say that "the criticism was based on player reactions."   Listening to the podcast and reading the comments here, it seems that the criticism is based on Mike's and Geoff's observations about how the courses were setup and how they played.  Each has extensive experience with the respective courses, and while both mentioned the criticism from the players, each seemed to me to be commenting on what they saw.  In fact, in the podcast they were each quite dismissive of the players who were whining about the setup.
______________________________________________

I think the disconnect here may be that those here are just so thrilled to see balls bouncing and rolling after they hit that they aren't really in a mindset to listen closely to what these guys are actually saying.   Had RM been setup as Mike suggested (hard greens running at 11) then the players would still have been "required to judge rollout on their shots and place the ball in strategic locations or risk embarrassment."

[Jason Thurman]

I think the disconnect is more that some of us simply don't agree with them. At the risk of being uninformed enough to publicly disagree with the hot takes of a blogger and a caddie on a conference call, I continue to believe this is much ado about nothing and a poor message to send.

[David Stamm]

I think the disconnect is more that some of us simply don't agree with them. At the risk of being uninformed enough to publicly disagree with the hot takes of a blogger and a caddie on a conference call, I continue to believe this is much ado about nothing and a poor message to send.

Let's show Clayton a little more consideration. The man played professionally and won.

[Brent Hutto]

I think the disconnect is more that some of us simply don't agree with them. At the risk of being uninformed enough to publicly disagree with the hot takes of a blogger and a caddie on a conference call, I continue to believe this is much ado about nothing and a poor message to send.

Let's show Clayton a little more consideration. The man played professionally and won.

And so did Stacy Lewis.

Yet their opinions on Royal Melbourne differ. Experience does not seem to determine ones opinion on this subject.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think the disconnect is more that some of us simply don't agree with them. At the risk of being uninformed enough to publicly disagree with the hot takes of a blogger and a caddie on a conference call, I continue to believe this is much ado about nothing and a poor message to send.

Let's show Clayton a little more consideration. The man played professionally and won.

I wish Mike wasn't involved in this mess because I believe he is a good man.  Two years ago the fact that he played professionally and won would have been seen as a negative. If you are watching Doral the great players turned commentators will not accept the fact that a ball that hits a green and finds the water is a bad shot. If we don't speak up, who will?

[Jason Thurman]

I was under the impression that describing him as a caddie was accurate. No judgment implied. I respect his on-the-ground experience, but not enough to trust him to form my opinions for me as some would suggest I should.

[DMoriarty]

I think the disconnect is more that some of us simply don't agree with them. At the risk of being uninformed enough to publicly disagree with the hot takes of a blogger and a caddie on a conference call, I continue to believe this is much ado about nothing and a poor message to send.

Except that the message with which you seem to disagree wasn't really their message.  Everyone is using this thread to tout their own issues, not much of it has much to do with what these guys said.

[Brent Hutto]

I think Mike Clayton's opinions on golf course design and setup are closer to my own than the opinions of 99.999% of people who have ever earned a living playing golf. The fact that I personally have a small quibble with this particular opinion would only be taken as some sort of slight or disrespect by people looking for an excuse to get their dander up.

[EDIT: Digression removed]