Mike Clayton and Geoff Shackelford Talk Royal Melbourne and Riviera

[BHoover]

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.

Exactly. I'm glad at least a few people seemed to listen to the podcast. I was afraid maybe my connection was poor, but it appears that's not the case.

[John Kavanaugh]

It's a 58 minute podcast.

[Sean_A]

It is troubling that some think because I disagree with Mike and/or Geoff that it is a sign of disrepect or that I didn't listen to the podcast.  Listen, its fine to disagree...nobody has to walk away with hurt feelings and nobody needs to rush to the aid of the "injured" parties.  I have my PoV and in the big scheme of things it doesn't matter a tosh if it is in perfect harmony with Jeff, Mike or whoever. Live and let live.

Ciao

[Jason Thurman]

Hoover, your connection was fine. Geoff's was poor. That's a little inside joke for everyone who listened to the podcast.

I listened and I still didn't come away with the same impression as Moriarty. I didn't hear any reasoning for why Clayton thought Royal Melbourne was too firm and fast aside from when he said that the setup didn't make players want to come back (right around the 7:30 mark). I simply don't share his concern. In fact, I wouldn't consider it any real tragedy if the tournament never came back - Royal Melbourne's greatness is not contingent on whether or not it regularly hosts a women's golf tournament. I understand why he might feel the way he does, but I think he's incorrect.

I also heard Geoff mention the guy who played ping pong back and forth around the 10th green and was made to look foolish in the process. Geoff stated that two of the shots he hit were poor, but he took exception with the fact that the guy also hit a well-struck bunker shot that wouldn't stay on the green. I understand why some would consider that to be out of control, but I'm personally fine with the idea of bunkers playing as hazards once in a while. It seemed to me that players who stayed in position and didn't hit crappy shots fared reasonably on a hole that gave up plenty of birdies.

I see no reason to deem the conditions of either course as excessive. It seems to me that everyone still played the same course and several players broke par, and therefore the courses were just fine as they were. No reduction in firmness or speed needed for my tastes. In other words, what Sean said.

[Don Mahaffey]

I still don't get why some here feel the need to "clairify" Mike and Geoff's comments. Both men clearly feel the firmness of the greens at the respective courses was not in sync with the speed, design, and/or talent of the respective fields.

Neither was advocating for some sort of across the board softening of greens, but both said the greens were too firm at the tournaments held at Riviera and RM.  why this is still in debate makes no sense and please don't feel the need to correct me as I listened to the podcast for a second time today while flying home. 

I do think the one thing that has not been talked about is how different the courses played.  I still think an astute and cautious player could get around RM even with the rock hard greens. It seemed like a player could change her game plan and survive the conditions.

But it also seems to me that Riviera is different because the approach and surrounds condition does not allow for a change in tactics because you cannot use the ground game at Riviera. 

Id be interested to know if my theory is held by anyone else and I'll admit it to being a reach as I have not played RM. I'm more confident in my take on Riviera. if Riviera were to commit to a long term maintenance program that includes very firm greens it seems they would want to address the playability of the kikuyu around the greens. My guess is they will not do either and will only have super firm greens one week a year.

[Joe Hancock]

Fun discussion. The only thing I'm wary of in this whole thing is that there seems to be certain shots that deserve better, according to my interpretation of others' opinions. I could care less. Whoever adapts and plays in the fewest strokes, wins. Period.

Joe

[Brent Hutto]

Joe,

In my book the only thing a shot "deserves" is that your fellow competitors not walk up and steal your ball while it's still rolling. For the outcome of the actual shot "deserve" is no part of nothing.

[Joe Hancock]

Brent,

I agree. To clarify, I don't feel that way, but it seems others do.

Joe

[Don Mahaffey]

Pro golf has become very one dimensional.  Add in very firm greens and grass around the greens that prohibits any ground game and you've taken one dimensional to an entire new level. I don't know Riv like Geoff but I'd be all for firm hard greens if the player had the option to bounce the ball in. How fun would it be to watch that?  Play that?

[DMoriarty]

Fun discussion. The only thing I'm wary of in this whole thing is that there seems to be certain shots that deserve better, according to my interpretation of others' opinions. I could care less. Whoever adapts and plays in the fewest strokes, wins. Period.

Joe

I don't care a bit about the pro game or the pro complaints or what shots deserve.  What I care about is when great courses are tricked up to produce some desired score or to create the perception of toughness.  Riviera 10 was tricked up to create bogies.  It is a great hole and it doesn't need to get tricked up, bogies or not.  Likewise RM is a great course and, according to Mike, it doesn't need to be at the absolute cutting edge extreme of firmness and green speed in order to be a great course.  But according to Mike that is what the way they set it up.

I think that is at the root of what Mike and Geoff were saying here.  Don't mess with these courses. They don't need it.  

[Joe Hancock]

David,

I hear you. In reality, every course is "messed with". Someone has to add water(or not). Someone has to set mowing heights. Someone has to fertilize. Someone has to set pins. Someone has to decide where the fairway is, and where the rough is, and what kind of grass it is. What constitutes "tricked up" to you might not even register as unusual to me when it comes to the set of variables listed above.

The problem is standardization, both in practice and perception. I like what Arble is saying...let's let mother nature dictate more than we as humans do. Plain and simple.

Don't get me started on bunkers either....

[Sean_A]

David

It could be argued that tricking up #10 may be the newish swale to the rear of the green and the choice of grass....

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

The problem is standardization, both in practice and perception. I like what Arble is saying...let's let mother nature dictate more than we as humans do. Plain and simple.

Don't get me started on bunkers either....

Great stuff

[DMoriarty]

David,

I hear you. In reality, every course is "messed with". Someone has to add water(or not). Someone has to set mowing heights. Someone has to fertilize. Someone has to set pins. Someone has to decide where the fairway is, and where the rough is, and what kind of grass it is. What constitutes "tricked up" to you might not even register as unusual to me when it comes to the set of variables listed above.

Maybe in some general sense, but when a hole has a 90+ year history it gets quite a lot easier for someone like Geoff to tell when it is being tricked up.

The problem is standardization, both in practice and perception. I like what Arble is saying...let's let mother nature dictate more than we as humans do. Plain and simple.

I like what Sean is saying as well, in a general sense.  But nothing said in the podcast contradicts Sean. And as you observed in your first post to me in this thread, we aren't talking about day to day maintenance practices here.  We are talking about extreme practices to show off the course for a tournament.  It'd be great if every course could be more like Fisher's Island (your example) or Kingsley Club, but that is really a different issue as compared to what goes on at a top course in preparation for a tournament. That is what is frustrating to me. People are taking comments about extreme setups and trying to extrapolate to some overall position on day-to-day maintenance, and that seems overzealous to me.
_________________________________________________________

David

It could be argued that tricking up #10 may be the newish swale to the rear of the green and the choice of grass....

Ciao

I think Geoff addressed these changes in the podcast.

I don't think there is much choice in the grass, but one could certainly argue that shaving then rolling the area behind the green was part of tricking up the hole.

[Terry Lavin]

Working around Mother Nature and/ or predicting her "input" is hard enough for everyday golf course maintenance. It gets really dicey when trying to set up a course for a professional major, or for a "preview" setup, which the Riv folks were apparently doing. Mistakes happen. You're walking the high wire.

[BCowan]

I just wish Watson had the same set up as Phil at the open.  the greens speeds arms race ruined Muirfield open imo.  Cut greens too low, then had to soften them.  Watson deserves another open, he had to endure firm and 9 which hurt him on yhe 72nd hole.  With all the modern equipment there is no excuse to let great greens run over 10 In tourney comp.  David, if arch meld is proper there is no such thing as too hard.  Rivera 10th was a result of excessive speed.  

Ps-  suggesting Dr mack greens are okay at 11 indicates a disconnect

[BHoover]

I disagree that there is never a reason to get speeds above 10. Seems to me the wise approach is a case-by-case analysis. On an exposed links, sure, you can't let the green speeds get out of hand, otherwise the greens would be unplayable in windy conditions. But why should that automatically be the case at a RM or ANGC or Oakmont? Understand, I'm not advocating for certain green speeds. Simply saying that there's no "right" green speed.

[BCowan]

Hoover, for C&A I think 12 is just right.  I'm tired of great greens with bold movement being flattened.  Case by case yes.  But any green at 13 the ball isn't going to stay on.  It be nice if a pro would come out at say green speed are the problem.  Oakmont started the whole race.

[Josh Stevens]

Surely Clayt's point was not that firm is bad, but that there is such thing as too firm when taking into account local conditions and who is playing. It was the hot north wind, and ladies playing in low spinning 5 irons is different to men coming in with fizzing 9 irons.

His other point is that Melbourne has form.

The 74 open at RM when Trevino told them to stick their course up their arse and vowed never to return - he never did.
The 87 Open at RM when a combination of wind, silly greens and bad pins made it unplayable - Sandy Lyle led the players off in mutiny,  barricaded themselves in the locker room and refused to play.  The round was cancelled and event pushed into Monday
The 2002 Open next door at Victoria when they forgot to water the greens and double cut and rolled them so they were running 17 on the first day.  The day was cancelled and the event reduced to 54 holes leading one American visitor to quip that it was the first time he had seen a round cancelled on account of fine weather.
The 2004 US open at Shinnecock - I understand was as a result of the USGA getting in a greens consultant from Melbourne to help get the greens quick. That went well.

So does seem to be some common factors - Melbournians and amateur administrators

[Adam Lawrence]

You a Sydneysider by any chance Josh?

[Don Mahaffey]

Please more info about the Sandy Lyle led mutiny.

[Mike_Clayton]

Royal Melbourne's greens are pretty severely contoured. Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to the speeds MacKenzie and Russell saw them ideally running at? 8,9 10,11,12,13 or 14+? Over the years I have played them running at all those speeds but obviously not the slower ones in tournaments.

And, tournament play at RM has always been notoriously slow. In the 1972 World Cup play in 4s was taking over 6 hours. The opening rounds at the Women's Open were 5+ hours. It has always been the same over the first two days.
Without doubt the speed and firmness of the greens matched with their difficulty contributes to the speed of play.
 In my experience it is the hardest course in the world to get the ball within a tap-in distance and that has consequences, one of which is slow play. It has nothing to do with the speed of modern players.It hasn't changed in 40 years.

Is this a problem?

[Peter Pallotta]

This is what happens when experts have to fill broadcast hours and amateurs come upon empty chat-room pages; all the time on our hands has gone to our heads, and we end up piling nuance upon nuance and splitting hairs until there's nothing left to split. Until just a couple of days ago I used to make fun of all those cloistered 12th century monks who spent their years debating the number of angels that could stimp dance on the head of a pin. No more mocking from me, cloistered monks, no more....

Peter

[BCowan]

''Does anyone want to hazard a guess as to the speeds MacKenzie and Russell saw them ideally running at?''

   No, id like to know.  I'm guessing this is a trick question.  Mike, I'm curious as to what speed you think RM's greens should be for tourney play if you were in charge? 

[Mike_Clayton]

Don

I played that day.
RM used to use the same pin positions for all four days and they were based on the ones used for the 1959 World Cup. The pin on the 3rd was always in the top right corner, just over the bunker on Sunday.
I got to the tee and could see straight away it was not there but further to the left. It was incorrectly cut on a severe slope and as a consequence balls were running everywhere. There were a few stories as to why it was cut in the wrong place and the one I have always believed most likely was the bloke cutting the hole saw a white piece of birds dropping and mistook it for the white paint used to make the days pin position.
Brett Ogle putted one two feet past and it turned before running back into the hole. Others putted from 15 feet below the hole only to have the ball get to the hole before returning to their feet.
It was clearly unplayable and as a consequence the round was cancelled.Sandy was in one of the final groups and after walking all the way to the green to see what was happening (play had obviously slowed to a crawl) he refused to play - quite rightly. He was the Masters Champion and the Golf Union were going to take a whole lot more notice of him than any of the local rank-and-file.

It was a brutal north wind day and the whole course was playing like a skating rink. To give you an idea of how hard,I was playing with Rodger Davis and we were in the middle of the field starting out - no better than 35th place.
We played 15 holes, he was one over for the day and running 3rd.