[Benjamin Litman]

From a Podcast posted today, here are 58 minutes of GCA-related music for your ears (although the first six minutes are devoted to the recent professional tournaments held at those courses, so you might want to fast forward accordingly). Enjoy.

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2015/3/2/state-of-the-game-podcast-52-royal-melbourne-riviera.html

[RJ_Daley]

We touched on the issue of sparse crowds at RM and Geoff noted the crowd wasn't all that at 'the Riv' as well.  I liked Geoff's idea of using more technology to bring a radio or closed circuit broadcast of sorts to fans as they attend and make their way around the course that informs of what is going on throughout the grounds and player field in other parts of the course instead of the myopic view one gets following one group or staying in one place on the course and not knowing if some exciting play is going on even one or two fairways away. 

I disagree with Mike Clayton about RM playing too firm on the greens and discouraging 'good shots' and leaving too much to chance of bounding through the green if not hit to right place or right tragectory, etc.   Yes, the results are probably frustrating to the players who think the hit the beauty shot and then feel like they got hosed by running through or dropping into a bunker cut tight into a green, RM style.  But, as noted, Lydia didn't have such a tough time hitting some64% of her green approaches.   It didn't frustrate me as a spectator, and I would think that the field of players ought to look at it as that the condition is equal to the whole field, and someone (Lydia) proved the conditions can be contended on and dealt with if the right shot making skills are achieved.  But, duly noted that Mike said that he thought if a vote was taken of the ladies field of players, most would vote not to return to RM with the same playing conditions F&F.   

Clayts must be in great shape as it was brought out how he caddied the first two days in 90 to 100 degreeF for Ms OH and then went out to follow two more rounds each day of players behind Oh.  And, he repeated the multiple rounds walking about the course all day Sat and Sun in similar heat.  What is your preferred form of hopsie hydration, Mike? 

[Mike_Clayton]

RJ

I think RM's greens were just on the side of being was too firm for the event. It doesn't need to get to the point where there is nothing remotely close to a pitch mark on the greens for the greatness of the course to be on full display. I doubt there will be a men's professional event all year anywhere in the world where the greens are so hard and few where they will be as fast.
I think it would be just as interesting and almost as demanding if it was just a little less hard and a little slower to putt.
Of course the counter argument is the best player worked it out and managed it perfectly well.

[Josh Stevens]

I wonder if modern ball flight plays an issue here
the ladies were hitting  approaches with the sorts clubs that the men used to hit decades ago, but with different shapes

If memory serves, a wooden driver or long iron with a balata ball, if hit hard, would come out low and hot, then rise up as the spin created lift, falling at the end at a steeper angle than it came of the club face.  Now we see higher launch angles and less spin.  So is it correct to infer that a 200 yard 3 iron approach 40 years ago with a balata ball, would have stopped faster than that that same shot today?

I never flushed a 200yard soft landing 3 iron in my life, so I am guessing here.

[Jon Wiggett]

Josh,

no I do not think the ball used to stop quicker. Indeed if anything I would say it runs less now. I do think the higher ball flight and the fact it is harder to work the ball makes the running game less predictable which kind of backs up MC view of the course being less playable when so firm.

Jon

[Thomas Dai]

It's a long time ago, but my recollection is that cutting or drawing a balata ball into the wind was a pretty good way of getting some quick stop on a firm green. Seemed like it used to be the norm amongst the best players. Is there much of it attempted these days or does the modern ball pretty much preclude it?
atb

[Josh Stevens]

Interesting that as much as MAC loves RM, he suggested they just cant seem to help themselves and push it over the edge every time there is s tournament.

What is the psychology behind this - is it that being now a shortish and rather wide course, they fear it has no defence other than crazy greens?

Victorians do seem to have this habit - it does appear that every example in Oz where greens have been pushed over the edge and everyone ended up looking dopey, was in Melbourne.  No motive here, just saying

[John Kavanaugh]

Speaking out against firm greens is a dangerous trend that should not be supported. When and why did this start?

[BHoover]

Stacey Lewis not wanting to play RM because "it doesn't reward good shots" is a sad commentary on how the pros view golf courses. Mike appropriately remarked that her comment showed her to be an idiot. I also put great credence in his comments on the greens being too firm and fast for proper tournament play.

I'm enjoying Mike's thoughts immensely. He's the person whose opinion on architecture, tournament golf, etc. I respect above almost all others.

[jeffwarne]

Stacey Lewis not wanting to play RM because "it doesn't reward good shots" is a sad commentary on how the pros view golf courses. Mike appropriately remarked that her comment showed her to be an idiot. I also put great credence in his comments on the greens being too firm and fast for proper tournament play.

I'm enjoying Mike's thoughts immensely. He's the person whose opinion on architecture, tournament golf, etc. I respect above almost all others.

Wouldn't Stacy and Mike kind've be saying the same thing?
i.e. perhaps she was referring to the presentation(as was Mike), and to be fair that presentation would've been her one chance to evaluate the course.

[BHoover]

Stacey Lewis not wanting to play RM because "it doesn't reward good shots" is a sad commentary on how the pros view golf courses. Mike appropriately remarked that her comment showed her to be an idiot. I also put great credence in his comments on the greens being too firm and fast for proper tournament play.

I'm enjoying Mike's thoughts immensely. He's the person whose opinion on architecture, tournament golf, etc. I respect above almost all others.

Wouldn't Stacy and Mike kind've be saying the same thing?
i.e. perhaps she was referring to the presentation(as was Mike), and to be fair that presentation would've been her one chance to evaluate the course.

Perhaps that's what she meant, but that's not the takeaway I had. If I'm wrong, then I apologize to Stacey (not that she would/should care). But I took her comments to be an indication that she prefers the typical tour presentation of courses--soft and receptive.

[Benjamin Litman]

I'm with you on this one, Brian. (Jeff: In the podcast, Mike goes on to say that Royal Melbourne, as Lydia Ko proved, certainly rewards good shots, it just punishes bad ones more than most courses.)

Given how much of a fighter she is, I'm surprised that Stacey makes the more-than-occasional whiny comment. A lot of fans don't like her as a result, and find Lydia so refreshing by comparison. What amazed me most about Lydia at Royal Melbourne was not her execution but her attitude (the two, of course, were/are related). She openly embraced the challenge that the course posed and realized, unlike Stacey, that "good shots" at Royal Melbourne (she reverentially referred to it as "The Royal") are different than "good shots" at the typical tour stop. That doesn't make one type of good shot better than the other, it just reflects the variety in playing surfaces that makes golf so unique. For a 17-year-old to get it more than many veterans made me even more of a fan than I already was. (Given than Stacey won the British Open at St. Andrews, which was MacKenzie's inspiration generally, and especially for Royal Melbourne, I'm even more surprised that she made her "doesn't reward good shots" comment.)

One shot from the tournament tells you everything you need to know about Lydia. She was cruising along in the final round until she reached the 8th hole (the incomparable short par-4 10th on the West Course). After a good drive, she had only a wedge second, but landed the ball three paces past the pin and then watched it bound off the back of the green and down the steep slope to a scruffy pitching area. She then made the mistake of following her caddie's advice by trying a flop, which predictably didn't reach the green, then played a bump and run into the bank and left herself a 10-footer for bogey, which she made. Afterward, did Lydia blame the course for not rewarding her good wedge shot from the fairway? No, she took the blame herself for flying it a few yards too far--she knew that, all week, she needed to land her shots short and let them release--and then playing the wrong short-game shot.

[jeffwarne]

Stacey Lewis not wanting to play RM because "it doesn't reward good shots" is a sad commentary on how the pros view golf courses. Mike appropriately remarked that her comment showed her to be an idiot. I also put great credence in his comments on the greens being too firm and fast for proper tournament play.

I'm enjoying Mike's thoughts immensely. He's the person whose opinion on architecture, tournament golf, etc. I respect above almost all others.

Wouldn't Stacy and Mike kind've be saying the same thing?
i.e. perhaps she was referring to the presentation(as was Mike), and to be fair that presentation would've been her one chance to evaluate the course.

Perhaps that's what she meant, but that's not the takeaway I had. If I'm wrong, then I apologize to Stacey (not that she would/should care). But I took her comments to be an indication that she prefers the typical tour presentation of courses--soft and receptive.

Not saying you're wrong at all, just referencing Mike had also commented about conditions being a bit firm for ladies lower spin shots.
The best player right now won so I'd say the courses definitely rewarded "good shots".
You just have to identify what those are.

[John Kavanaugh]

Well some of your hero thought leaders now want every green soft so we can watch darts.  Must be true.  The most important single shot of my viewing life may have been Tom Watson bounding one over the green when he had a chance to with the Open at an advanced age.  If only the green had been soft he may have won.  Supporting such notions needs to stop before we go in reverse to soft miserable easy golf.

Riviera and Royal Melbourne are being talked about what is wrong with golf and you guys are buying it.  Why the silence in the face of this travesty?

Here is the real truth.  Firm greens could be what saves the game from the bombers.  When I was young and strong we had a choice between a no spin ball that went very far or a spin balata ball that would hold the firm greens of our day.  Every decent player chose a shorter ball off the tee so we could hold greens.  The modern pro has the same choice if he is fighting firm greens.  They will follow the money and choose a ball with more spin that travels less far if that is what it takes to win.  Give them soft greens and that will never happen.  Want a voluntary roll back, firm up the greens.

[BHoover]

John, did you even bother to listen to the podcast? Who here is calling for soft greens?

Actually, don't answer that because I don't want to get sucked into your vortex of snarky trolling.

[John Kavanaugh]

John, did you even bother to listen to the podcast? Who here is calling for soft greens?

Of course I didn't listen and won't.  Never heard a podcast in my life.  If greens are being called too firm what other option is there besides to soften them up.  I read the links to Geoff's rants about the firm greens at Riviera and blew them off for what they were.  It is sad to see it now continued to RM.

The fact of the matter is that no one will listen to the podcast.  They will take what people say they are saying as fact.  I am hearing that they are saying that the greens were too firm.  True or not?

[BHoover]

John, did you even bother to listen to the podcast? Who here is calling for soft greens?

Of course I didn't listen and won't.  Never heard a podcast in my life.  If greens are being called too firm what other option is there besides to soften them up.  I read the links to Geoff's rants about the firm greens at Riviera and blew them off for what they were.  It is sad to see it now continued to RM.

The fact of the matter is that no one will listen to the podcast.  They will take what people say they are saying as fact.  I am hearing that they are saying that the greens were too firm.  True or not?

Of course you didn't listen. Listening would defeat your purpose...

It's not true, for what it's worth.

[John Kavanaugh]

John, did you even bother to listen to the podcast? Who here is calling for soft greens?

Actually, don't answer that because I don't want to get sucked into your vortex of snarky trolling.

Sorry I answered before your edit.  I was surprised you didn't call me a name the first time.  

I'm right about firm greens and everyone knows it.  This is an important issue that should not be swept under the rug.

[Jason Way]

The fact of the matter is that no one will listen to the podcast.  They will take what people say they are saying as fact.  I am hearing that they are saying that the greens were too firm.  True or not?

I listened to the podcast, John.  Informing oneself can be really refreshing.  

The discussion of the limits of firm and fast (RM) and the difficulty around the greens (Riv #10) was really interesting, and important.  There are limits to everything, and I'm okay if they get tested.  I'm also okay if those tests get questioned afterward.  That is how the game is going to continue to evolve.

Beyond that, Lydia Ko has a fan in me.  That is for sure.

[BHoover]

John, did you even bother to listen to the podcast? Who here is calling for soft greens?

Actually, don't answer that because I don't want to get sucked into your vortex of snarky trolling.

Sorry I answered before your edit.  I was surprised you didn't call me a name the first time.  

I'm right about firm greens and everyone knows it.  This is an important issue that should not be swept under the rug.

Read closely, I didn't call you a name. If you did take offense, I'll gladly apologize. But why not listen to the podcast first and then offer your opinion? By the way, I agree that firm greens are important. I'm not dismissing your opinion; I agree for the most part. But Mike is not actually calling for soft greens.

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike said the greens were too firm on this thread.  I think that is a fact.

I have never been on Facebook or listened to a Podcast. Those are not huge filters in a full life.  The only reason I read a damn word Geoff every says is because his blog gets constantly linked to this site.  Odd considering he is a member and could post if he chose.

Nothing is more fun than firm greens as the other JK once opined.  The time of ball roll out is the best time spent in golf.

[BHoover]

Mike said the greens were too firm on this thread.  I think that is a fact.

I have never been on Facebook or listened to a Podcast. Those are not huge filters in a full life.  The only reason I read a damn word Geoff every says is because his blog gets constantly linked to this site.  Odd considering he is a member and could post if he chose.

Nothing is more fun than firm greens as the other JK once opined.  The time of ball roll out is the best time spent in golf.

He said the greens were "too" firm. There's a big difference between that and calling for soft greens, would you agree? Also, his take was, I believe, couched in the context of the greens being too firm for a women's tournament. Whether that's true or not is subject to debate, but nowhere does that suggest a call for soft greens.

Congratulations on avoiding Facebook and podcasts. That's apparently a point of pride, so I will congratulate you for that.

[Don Mahaffey]

Interesting that Mike Clayton says the green's were a bit too firm.
My question: were they firmed up for the tournament, or are they watered down for regular play?

Of course we are talking about Royal Melbourne here and anything less than total adulation for the course is blasphemy. My feeling is if the greens need to be softened with water or in some other manner to play properly  then I have to question the design. That is a blasphemous statement, but one we would be asking if most any other course or architect was the subject.

I like the state of the game podcast, but the Hank Haney episode was a big turn off for me as I don't go to SOG for Tiger gossip.

[John Kavanaugh]

No, thought leaders should never say that greens are too firm, or that fairways are too firm, or as an example that we are too free.  It only leads to a destruction of all that is good.  Every reaction is met with an unequal over reaction until a balance is found in mediocrity.

Riviera and Royal Melbourne were anything but mediocre. That is a simple fact as evidenced in the broadcast of the tournaments.

[Don Mahaffey]

Mike said the greens were too firm on this thread.  I think that is a fact.

I have never been on Facebook or listened to a Podcast. Those are not huge filters in a full life.  The only reason I read a damn word Geoff every says is because his blog gets constantly linked to this site.  Odd considering he is a member and could post if he chose.

Nothing is more fun than firm greens as the other JK once opined.  The time of ball roll out is the best time spent in golf.

He said the greens were "too" firm. There's a big difference between that and calling for soft greens, would you agree? Also, his take was, I believe, couched in the context of the greens being too firm for a women's tournament. Whether that's true or not is subject to debate, but nowhere does that suggest a call for soft greens.

Congratulations on avoiding Facebook and podcasts. That's apparently a point of pride, so I will congratulate you for that.

Brian,
What agronomic advice would you give your supt? Water them a little for the ladies, a little more for the juniors, just a tad for the seniors, and dry as a bone for the tour guys?
Of course I'm being a wise ass, but partially serious. We're not talking about speed, we're talking about firmness. It would appear that you believe that we should control how hard the greens get. To do that, we have to soften them up, or keep the rollers and mowers off of them...or water....whatever.  
Of course we have been managing firmness for decades and most often it is done with the application of water often in excess of what the grass plant requires.  I think it a good discussion that if we have to do that to get proper playability, should we be discussing the design?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()