[Benjamin Litman]

In a wide-ranging interview with the always insightful Geoff Ogilvy, SI's Alan Shipnuck asked Ogilvy to reflect on his 2006 U.S. Open win at Winged Foot. Ogilvy, as is his wont, quickly turned to discussing GCA and course setups, arguing that the traditionally narrow setups at U.S. Opens inevitably lead to short-game contests. Hitting fairways and greens is "so hard," he explains, that "nobody does."

He then offered this gem, around the 30-minute mark, that I figured would be a prime conversation-starter here: "The great irony is that the narrow setup is about short game, and the wide setups like St. Andrews and Augusta are I think completely about ball-striking."

Toward the end, he notes that Nassau, Crystal Downs, and Pasatiempo are at the top of his extensive bucket list, and that he longs "to camp out on Long Island and play golf for a while."

The entire interview is available here: https://soundcloud.com/intheroughwithalanshipnuck/checking-in-with-one-of-the-pga-tours-favorite-soundbites-geoff-ogilvy

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - thanks. It's hard not to like Geoff, and not just because he's smart and articulate about gca. I envy him his talent, of course -- when he says he wants to hang out on Long Island and play golf, you know that he'd be really playing some golf (i.e. 'interfacing with the architecture' as Pat might say). And yes indeed, that line about the great irony is one of his best and most succinct.

Peter

[jeffwarne]

arguing that the traditionally narrow setups at U.S. Opens inevitably lead to short-game contests. Hitting fairways and greens is "so hard," he explains, that "nobody does."



[/url]

100% exactly what happened at Shinny in '04.
and then it evolved into who could make the inevitable 15 footer

[Benjamin Litman]

Peter and Jeff: Thanks to you both for finally getting this conversation started.

I wonder if Mike Davis's "graduated rough" concept for the U.S. Open was the direct result of this reality.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think it probably was, Ben. But I also think (and in this I may be in the minority here) that the role of the set up man under Mr Davis is getting out of hand and becoming increasingly the focus of discussion in an architecturally-unhealthy way. That Mr. Meeks might have erred in one way (with Shinnecock) doesn't necessarily mean that Mr Davis is right in his (seemingly much different) approach, eg with a moveable feast of tee boxes creating the (flavour of the month set up) of short par 4s. It has gotten to the point, it almost seems, that the USGA feels that the original course/arcitecture doesn't even matter, and that any course can now be a great championship test as long as an 'enlightened' set up man is in charge.
Peter

[jeffwarne]

I think it probably was, Ben. But I also think (and in this I may be in the minority here) that the role of the set up man under Mr Davis is getting out of hand and becoming increasingly the focus of discussion in an architecturally-unhealthy way. That Mr. Meeks might have erred in one way (with Shinnecock) doesn't necessarily mean that Mr Davis is right in his (seemingly much different) approach, eg with a moveable feast of tee boxes creating the (flavour of the month set up) of short par 4s. It has gotten to the point, it almost seems, that the USGA feels that the original course/arcitecture doesn't even matter, and that any course can now be a great championship test as long as an 'enlightened' set up man is in charge.
Peter

+1
After we bastardize the course (in response to equipment and agronomy gone mad) in the run-up to the Open, we then have the creative "setup star" come in a and steal whatever glory is left from the course

[Sean_A]

increasingly the focus of discussion in an architecturally-unhealthy way. That Mr. Meeks might have erred in one way (with Shinnecock) doesn't necessarily mean that Mr Davis is right in his (seemingly much different) approach, eg with a moveable feast of tee boxes creating the (flavour of the month set up) of short par 4s. It has gotten to the point, it almost seems, that the USGA feels that the original course/arcitecture doesn't even matter, and that any course can now be a great championship test as long as an 'enlightened' set up man is in charge.
Peter

+1
After we bastardize the course (in response to equipment and agronomy gone mad) in the run-up to the Open, we then have the creative "setup star" come in a and steal whatever glory is left from the course


Or, one could take the view that variety is the best sort of set-up and that par assignment doesn't make a difference.     If variety is good for the punters, why not for the flat bellies?  At the very least, variety in set-up is better entertainment than four days of the same hole from the same tee.

Ciao

[Niall C]

..but Sean, think of the poor architect who has taken so much trouble to make sure the hole is designed the right way to take into account the prevailing wind.

Niall

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - or, I'd say: Yes indeed, variety is very good for the flat bellies, and par assignment doesn't matter; but I have always assumed (perhaps stupidly or naively) that the often great architects who designed the often great courses on which US Opens are contested had already (and long ago) considered such matters and incorporated such elements originally, at least to the extent they thought wise in the context of the site itself and in terms of their own personal philosophy/ethos about what made for engaging architecture and challenging championship tests. But of course, maybe I've been wrong all along, and only the current USGA set-up man truly understands these concepts and knows how to make them manifest on the ground -- in fact, maybe he is even the one to have discovered them!!

Peter

[Andrew Buck]

Currently, it seems, the USGA likes to have one hole that can play as a drivable par 4 during the US Open.  I happen to like drivable par 4's and find them entertaining in professional golf.

Considering there are so few courses that can realistically host a major (logistically, as well as architecturally), I'd rather Mike Davis use a forward tee one day on a medium length par 4, than the great historic courses that host majors be "redesigned" to check this box in the USGA's wish list.

Geoff is right on, of course, and it has been great to see width re-enter the conversation.

[Ken Moum]

While I think Geoff is one of the great treasures in the game, I'm not so sure I agree with him.  At least not all the time.

The US Open is, IMHO, the one major that has been won with mediocre putting.  Larry Nelson being a classic example.  I believe Payne Stewart won at Hazeltine in 1991 with an average number of putts above 30.

But for most amateurs, like me, narrow fairways and high rough make golf exclusively about ball striking.  Because I won't hit ANY fairways or greens in such a setup.  Hell, in another life as a 8 handicapper, I kept stats for several years and was averaging under 2 GIRs in a round.

On a tight course, I not only miss greens but I end up having to one putt for bogey.

I say courses like that, "punish me for being me."  Wider courses let me at least get up around the green in regulation where my short game can bail me out.

Nevertheless, I probably make more one-putt bogeys than anyone on earth.

K

[Sean_A]

Sean - or, I'd say: Yes indeed, variety is very good for the flat bellies, and par assignment doesn't matter; but I have always assumed (perhaps stupidly or naively) that the often great architects who designed the often great courses on which US Opens are contested had already (and long ago) considered such matters and incorporated such elements originally, at least to the extent they thought wise in the context of the site itself and in terms of their own personal philosophy/ethos about what made for engaging architecture and challenging championship tests. But of course, maybe I've been wrong all along, and only the current USGA set-up man truly understands these concepts and knows how to make them manifest on the ground -- in fact, maybe he is even the one to have discovered them!!

Peter

Pietro

I can certainly buy your stance if

1. Equipment and course conditions hadn't moved on light years

2. Courses weren't altered to accomodate the long ball

3. If it could be shown that at the major championship level lengthening courses actually increases the challenge

4. If it could be shown that it is all-important to adhere to every design intent of the archie

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()