[John Kavanaugh]

What is the theory behind this sudden change against firm greens?  Are supers with the talent to provide these perfect conditions under pressure from their peers without either the talent or budget?  Is this another money issue disguised in sheep's clothing.  Personally the thought of seeing extreme conditions avoided even during high profile tournaments feels like another step toward mediocrity where we can no longer identify where the real talent in preparing turf exists.  Soft receptive greens may be the new fans.  A guarantee of a good nights sleep at the expense of the player.

[BHoover]

I think we're done here. Trying to get some folks to listen to reason, or understand facts, is very much like banging one's head against a brick wall--you can try it, but your head will hurt at the end of the day.

[John Kavanaugh]

For those of us who do not follow the LPGA and might want to buy into the Stacey Lewis theory please visit her Wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Lewis  Her career mirrors Jim Furyk, borderline Hall of Fame.  This is a bogus theory as her appearance in Australia has close to zero marquee value.  It is a shame she is being blamed.

[BHoover]

For those of us who do not follow the LPGA and might want to buy into the Stacey Lewis theory please visit her Wiki page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacy_Lewis  Her career mirrors Jim Furyk, borderline Hall of Fame.  This is a bogus theory as her appearance in Australia has close to zero marquee value.  It is a shame she is being blamed.

I don't click on Wikipedia.

[John Kavanaugh]

I think we're done here. Trying to get some folks to listen to reason, or understand facts, is very much like banging one's head against a brick wall--you can try it, but your head will hurt at the end of the day.

I called the green side fan debacle early and no one listened and now thousands of fans will never go away.  Firm greens are one of the true delights of playing golf.  It is vital to not lose them.  I saw no evidence of any problems in either tournament and now they are being compared to Shinney in 2004 and you people are buying it hook line and sinker.  Why?

[DMoriarty]

Anyone who has bothered to listen to the webcast knows that Kavanaugh's comments here are wholly asinine.  Neither Shackelford nor Clayton are advocating soft, splat and stop greens, or anything even close to this.

It is trolling at its worst for Kavanaugh to pretend otherwise, especially given that he hasn't even bothered to listen.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tommy has accused me of stalking Geoff's site when I only click on the links provided here.  I'm not clicking on anymore links including the one where the podcast presides.  The facts are clear that Geoff and Mike believe the courses were too firm for the tournaments.  There is no dispute.  The question is when do you stop softening greens, I would prefer that you never do especially when a 17 yr old is capable of shooting 9 under par and not win by a large margin.

If you truly look at the evidence of the play at 2004 Shinney you will see there is no comparison.

It is so much simpler to call me a troll, asinine or a stalker than to defend the Golf Digestation of American opinion before it is too late.  I thought firm greens were a given, something is up.

[David Stamm]

I have listened to the podcast and JK's comments are indeed asinine.

[John Kavanaugh]

How much softer have the greens and surrounds at Rustic became since it was a clear Golfweek top 100?  Have they ever been too firm?  If so, was it fun?

The softening of greens should never be promoted because it never ends.

[DMoriarty]

It is so much simpler to call me a troll, asinine or a stalker than to defend the Golf Digestation of American opinion before it is too late.  I thought firm greens were a given, something is up.

I call you a troll because that is what you are.  You are here just making shit up.  You haven't even listened to the podcast!   There nothing resembling what you are claiming in that podcast, and anyone who listens to it will see that you are making a fool of yourself.  Again.

You aren't worth addressing.  I am embarrassed that I even bothered, but I keep thinking that some people might actually take your nonsense seriously.

[John Kavanaugh]

You're embarrassed?  I'm being harassed by a man whose avatar is a toilet.

[Mark Pearce]

It strikes me as extraordinary that people still feed trolls.

[Jason Way]

Gents, I think that it's time that we all came clean and admitted that John is right on this one.  On the podcast, Geoff and Mike did, in fact, advocate vehemently for the softening of greens through overwatering.  Further, they said that decisions about green firmness should be made based solely on the aggregate opinions of the 12 whiniest tour pros.  They had the gall to claim that that would be in the "long term best interest of the game".  

I was initially aghast that these normally informed and reasonable fellows would make such statements.  Subsequently, my shock turned to concern, which then turned to a blinding rage.  

I took the liberty of reaching out to Geoff and Mike directly and giving them the tongue-lashing that they both deserved for their abhorrent lapse in judgment.  Mike was cowed and I think I detected the slightest hint of whimpering from Geoff.  They got the point and they won't do it again.

Whew.  Crisis averted.  Thanks for getting us back on track John.  I, for one, will never again be a part of a white-washing job like this on the DG.  After all, if it walks like a duck...

So, who wants to talk GCA?

[Jim Nugent]

The question is when do you stop softening greens, I would prefer that you never do especially when a 17 yr old is capable of shooting 9 under par and not win by a large margin.

The 17-year old is the #1-ranked women's player in the world.  Bringing up her age and not her ranking makes your argument weaker, not stronger. 

[JESII]

I just listened to the first half or so...they had gotten well away from this topic so I stopped.

There is zero doubt that Clayton and Shackelford are saying the greens at Royal Melbourne and Riviera were too firm. Too firm for the best mens field and the best womens field in golf that week.

To suggest they didn't is wholly disingenuous.

Mike Clayton is clearly saying for the health of the event, and to get the best players to come back, you need to present a course they will be happy with so it wasn't so much a fairness issue as a it was a business issue. Fine, I get it, but then lets stop blaming Augusta for that syndrome if we're not going to let one of the very best firm and fast golf courses in the world present itself as it wishes because it might ruffle Stacey Lewis' feathers. If the best presentations can't be praised, then the

Geoff Shackelford seems to focus on the fact that good looking shots didn't stop on the greens until they got that bit of rain late on Sunday. Should the superintendent plan on it not raining? Should they have control over when and how much it rains?

Both seemed to implore the setup guys to "get it right". This is a serious problem if these highly educated commentators want the set up guys to err on the side of too soft as opposed to too firm. How often do we see courses on TV (men and women) that we consider too firm? Once or twice a year? How often do we see courses that have clearly been overwatered? Basically the rest of the year.

John Kavanaugh is an easy target to attack as opposed to addressing his point, but this one is dead on. If the men played these conditions regularly, does anyone agree that they would seek out softer (and therefore shorter) golf balls to play? I guarantee they would! The voluntary roll back!

[jeffwarne]

I just listened to the first half or so...they had gotten well away from this topic so I stopped.

There is zero doubt that Clayton and Shackelford are saying the greens at Royal Melbourne and Riviera were too firm. Too firm for the best mens field and the best womens field in golf that week.

To suggest they didn't is wholly disingenuous.

Mike Clayton is clearly saying for the health of the event, and to get the best players to come back, you need to present a course they will be happy with so it wasn't so much a fairness issue as a it was a business issue. Fine, I get it, but then lets stop blaming Augusta for that syndrome if we're not going to let one of the very best firm and fast golf courses in the world present itself as it wishes because it might ruffle Stacey Lewis' feathers. If the best presentations can't be praised, then the

Geoff Shackelford seems to focus on the fact that good looking shots didn't stop on the greens until they got that bit of rain late on Sunday. Should the superintendent plan on it not raining? Should they have control over when and how much it rains?

Both seemed to implore the setup guys to "get it right". This is a serious problem if these highly educated commentators want the set up guys to err on the side of too soft as opposed to too firm. How often do we see courses on TV (men and women) that we consider too firm? Once or twice a year? How often do we see courses that have clearly been overwatered? Basically the rest of the year.

John Kavanaugh is an easy target to attack as opposed to addressing his point, but this one is dead on. If the men played these conditions regularly, does anyone agree that they would seek out softer (and therefore shorter) golf balls to play? I guarantee they would! The voluntary roll back!

+1
and the best player in the game continued her win streak

How often do we see a course where(everyone agrees) Mother nature provides too soft a course?
Shouldn't be the end of the world if occasionally it goes the other way, especially if such a result is achieved via sustainable and usual agronomy,
as opposed to the over managed "he said-she said" overengineered anything but sustainable debacle that occurred at Shinny, a course that NEVER plays the way it did that week of the Open

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Jk ..From what I ahve read on this thread and listening to the podcast, nobody is saying that greens cannot be firm, but by definition they can also be TOO firm.
If you dont see that, you are not only one of the rudest people I have ever enocountered on this site, but also perhaps one of the least qulaifed to have an opinion.
TOO FIRM can be a problem both for a womens field and a mens field, if not should we make putting surfaces out of cement?

Come off that high horse of confrontation once in a awhile, everything doesnt have to be that way.

[BCowan]

Gents, I think that it's time that we all came clean and admitted that John is right on this one.  On the podcast, Geoff and Mike did, in fact, advocate vehemently for the softening of greens through overwatering.  Further, they said that decisions about green firmness should be made based solely on the aggregate opinions of the 12 whiniest tour pros.  They had the gall to claim that that would be in the "long term best interest of the game".  

I was initially aghast that these normally informed and reasonable fellows would make such statements.  Subsequently, my shock turned to concern, which then turned to a blinding rage.  

I took the liberty of reaching out to Geoff and Mike directly and giving them the tongue-lashing that they both deserved for their abhorrent lapse in judgment.  Mike was cowed and I think I detected the slightest hint of whimpering from Geoff.  They got the point and they won't do it again.

Whew.  Crisis averted.  Thanks for getting us back on track John.  I, for one, will never again be a part of a white-washing job like this on the DG.  After all, if it walks like a duck...

So, who wants to talk GCA?

Great post!  I agree.  There isn't such a thing as too FIRM.  There is such thing as TOO FAST.  The elephant in the room, that I'm surprised people on this site aren't grasping.  Thus a definition by the archies here on F&F should prob be addressed.  I apologize to Jkava for not sticking up for him sooner.  

[Jason Thurman]

Jim, Jeff, +2.

[DMoriarty]

Jim, my compliments for at least listening before you chimed it, but I think you are reading more into their statements that what was there.  There was no directive to "err on the side of too soft," so I am not sure why you write as if there was.  

Clayton set it out in his discussion of the greens at RM.  He said something like, instead of having them play "literally hardest greens in the world" stimping at 13 or 14, why not have them play "still the hardest greens in the world" stimping at 11?   This is hardly a cry for "too soft" conditions.  Reasonableness in setup decisions does not automatically mean "too soft."  Hardest in the world and stimping at 11 does not mean "too soft."   How you could come away from this thinking otherwise is beyond me.

And keep in mind that Clayton was there, on site, watching shots all day every day.  In contrast, Shackelford  seemed to have thought the conditions at RM looked fine on t.v.  but he wasn't there, he wasn't seeing what Clayton was seeing.  You weren't either and neither was I. The idea that you and others are so quick to second guess his take on this issue without having been there rubs me the wrong way.  This guy has the credentials on issues like this and he ought to be able to offer his opinion on the conditions on the ground that day without us pretending he is part of some "Golf Digest" "softer is better" conspiracy, and that is exactly what Kavanaugh is doing. I am disappointed you are going along with it.  

Same goes for this notion that he and/or Shackelford were suggesting the tournaments ought to let the players dictate the conditions.   Again Clayton was quite clear on the podcast as to what he thought of the opinion of the Stacy Lewis, who didn't think shots were being rewarded.  I believe his most concise quote was:  "She's an idiot."  Shackelford's suggested her viewpoint was very "American" and he didn't mean that as a compliment. Both of them praised the winner and noted that if you hit the necessary shots they were rewarded.
___________________________________________

BCowan,  I am pretty sure Jason Way's comments were tongue-in-cheek.

[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   

[jeffwarne]

 "firm as mother nature reasonably allows without spending loads extra on green keeping".   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   

bingo

[Brent Hutto]

 "firm as mother nature reasonably allows without spending loads extra on green keeping".   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   

bingo

Especially when playing at Royal Melbourne which is renowned for getting very firm and fast at times.

After all we don't complain that the best players in the world often three-putt at Augusta, do we?

[DMoriarty]

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.

[Mike_Clayton]

There is surely a difference between firm and rock hard? My definition of rock hard is finding almost no evidence of a pitch mark all week and certainly not having to repair one.
Hard is fine too if they are running no more than 11 - but for women rock hard and 12-13 is a little much especially on what is already a hard course. So Yeon Ryu called it the hardest she plays all year.
That is all I ever said - or certainly intended to say.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()