[Doug Siebert]

Do they roll the greens at TOC?

This might be stating the obvious, but I haven't seen anyone else make this comment, so I will:

I think the R & A correctly tried to keep the greens as fast as possible (which just happens to increase green speeds) to reduce the effectiveness of the "bomb and gougers."

How are fast greens (as opposed to firm greens) a defense against bomb and gouge?  And since when has gouging been a thing at TOC, with its wide fairways and wispy rough which TOC's greens crew deliberately thinned?  You can't gouge at TOC any more than you can at ANGC.

If you meant "firm greens" there (which your parenthetical statement makes me think) then why do you think that you can't have firm slow greens? Anyway, they can't make the greens firm when it keeps raining, unless perhaps the R&A digs up the Auld Turf to install subair 

[Mark Chaplin]

The embedded weather man on Saturday said that St. Andrews was experiencing the strongest winds in Scotland on Saturday morning, even Edinburgh 30 miles away was a lot quieter. Part of a championship on a links course is players accept the weather. Had they decided not to start on Saturday morning when the course was playable that would have been unfair on those who had finished.
What did happen was those on the course especially at the rear of the field had a couple of tough holes around the turn, play got suspended and when they came back they got a benign back nine. Fox the Kiwi was +1 after 8 and on a breezy day certain to miss the cut. He then got the best of the weather and shot 32 on the back 9 to come in -3 and comfortably make the cut.

[Adam Clayman]

Judge, I don't do interviews anymore. And, I'm glad to see you're still never in doubt.

Gib, Have you thought about becoming a judge?

[Bill Brightly]

Do they roll the greens at TOC?

This might be stating the obvious, but I haven't seen anyone else make this comment, so I will:

I think the R & A correctly tried to keep the greens as fast as possible (which just happens to increase green speeds) to reduce the effectiveness of the "bomb and gougers."

How are fast greens (as opposed to firm greens) a defense against bomb and gouge?  And since when has gouging been a thing at TOC, with its wide fairways and wispy rough which TOC's greens crew deliberately thinned?  You can't gouge at TOC any more than you can at ANGC.

If you meant "firm greens" there (which your parenthetical statement makes me think) then why do you think that you can't have firm slow greens? Anyway, they can't make the greens firm when it keeps raining, unless perhaps the R&A digs up the Auld Turf to install subair 

Doug,


I should have been clearer. I think they wanted FIRM greens to defend against the bomb and gougers. And , ceteris paribus, anything done to make a green firmer will increase the putting speed.


I'd really like to hear from a superintendent with experience on a links course with fescue greens. That is why I asked if they roll the greens at TOC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[quote author=Doug Siebert link=topic=61448.msg1459559#msg1459559

How are fast greens (as opposed to firm greens) a defense against bomb and gouge?  And since when has gouging been a thing at TOC, with its wide fairways and wispy rough which TOC's greens crew deliberately thinned? 
 
You can't gouge at TOC any more than you can at ANGC.
 
Doug,
 
"Bomb and gouge" is an applicable term with respect to TOC, but, not ANGC.
 
Do you really think that # 15 fairway was wide ?
 
I believe it's been considerably narrowed.

If you meant "firm greens" there (which your parenthetical statement makes me think) then why do you think that you can't have firm slow greens? Anyway, they can't make the greens firm when it keeps raining, unless perhaps the R&A digs up the Auld Turf to install subair 
 
Mother Nature always wins.
 

[Niall C]

... for this awful Open?

Now that we've had a chance to take stock of what was one of the best Opens in recent memory, was this not a pretty foolish remark to make ? The weather has always been a factor at the Open, more than any of the other majors and having to deal with it is part and parcel of playing in the event. I took the afternoon off to watch the final round on TV and the standard of play was fantastic with loads of players in the mix, topped off with a worthy champion. What more could you ask for ?


Niall

[Jason Thurman]

My use of the word "awful" was pretty clearly in reference to the logistical mess of canceling a day's play and the constant stopping and starting of play through two rounds. It's no surprise that a competitive tournament broke out when the winds finally settled to a speed of between 0 and 15 mph.


Make no mistake, though. A three man playoff on a Monday afternoon doesn't make up for the fact that the game's most revered piece of ground, and specifically one of the best par 3s in the world, was altered in the name of:


1. Avoiding wind delays
2. Challenging professionals, which the R&A has deemed critical to keeping The Old Course relevant


The changes weren't merely controversial. They were also ineffective at accomplishing both stated goals. Play was postponed on multiple occasions due to issues on the very green that was most significantly and most controversially altered to avoid postponement of play. And while winds were high, with accounts consistently placing them in the 25-30 mph range with gusts near 40, they weren't anything that anyone on this forum hasn't played in before. Scottish golf's national slogan of "Nae wind, nae golf" should probably be updated to "Nae breeze, nae golf."


Personally, I blame the players, and particularly Brooks Koepka, for the silly wind delays. His group essentially forced a stoppage of play on Saturday when he simply refused to step up and hit a putt because the ball would oscillate when he stood over it, and god forbid a player disrupt his pre-shot routine due to weather. His group forced the committee's hand, and given the option of assessing slow-play penalties or stopping play altogether, the committee chose the former. This is a dangerous precedent to set, and I don't expect it to be the last time we see players simply refuse to play when the weather doesn't suit them. I also blame Peter Dawson for altering the green in the first place, and Martin Hawtree for failing to have the foresight to advise his client that balls would still oscillate in high winds at Open green speeds due to the exposure of the surface regardless of how he adjusted the slope.


As to goal #2, when the wind speeds were in that 0-15 mph window in which The Old Course is now playable, the course was toothless. It's great that the leaderboard ended up being crowded and the Monday finale was competitive. It was not, however, challenging. Given that the R&A has stated that keeping The Old Course relevant to professionals is a critical goal, this is another dangerous issue. I expect more ineffective changes to be made to the course after this tournament, and that's a poor tradeoff for a three-man playoff.

[Niall C]

Jason


That the weather tipped it over the edge of playable on ocassion is unfortunate in terms of continuity of play but that doesn't detract from the overall challenge or quality of play. Frankly, I loved seeing these guys being challenged. Brook Koepka was right to question whether the wind was beyond playable and obviously the R&A agreed. Neither he nor the R&A can be blamed for that. Neither can the R&A be blamed for putting them out early saturday morning for a short period before stopping play again. Even if they had a crystal ball that told them that the wind would increase they should still have put them out. After all, not playing when it is playable in preference for waiting for better weather is hardly fair on the other competitors.


As for your assertion that the 11th green was altered to avoid wind delays, that's a new one to me and I suspect everyone else. The green was altered to create new pin positions which were used to great effect. Clearly it was a challenging pin position also.


It just seems to me that you are trying very hard to apportion blame when none is due. While it's unfortunate that they didn't manage to stage manage the tournament so that there was play for peak viewing in the US, I suspect the organisers were more concerned about the integrity of the competition which they defended well with great skill and many years of experience.


Niall

[Brent Hutto]

I blame whoever started playing golf outdoors, near the sea. Obviously they were not thinking ahead to the viewing convenience of TV watchers a few hundred years later who will have to endure a Monday finish once every couple of decades.

[Adam Lawrence]

Jason, fair enough, but I'm with Niall that calling it an 'awful Open' was a definite case of a premature ejaculation.

[John Kavanaugh]

It seems like movies, books and even sitcoms have been a standard length for quite some time. When did watching golf for entertainment become an eight hour marathon?  I'm afraid we are being given too much of a good thing. It's awful.

[Ben Attwood]

Now that they've made course alterations to keep the old course relevant' to professionals surely the only logical next step to address equipment. Surely?

I hope that discussions of a ball roll back / freeze starts at the endure his season. Pigs may also fly.

[Jud_T]

And while winds were high, with accounts consistently placing them in the 25-30 mph range with gusts near 40, they weren't anything that anyone on this forum hasn't played in before. Scottish golf's national slogan of "Nae wind, nae golf" should probably be updated to "Nae breeze, nae golf."


 

[Michael Tamburrini]

Peter Dawson on the new 11th green: “What we have now is a green that will still be puttable in a high wind, which it wasn’t before. It was this green that caused the suspension of play back in 2010."

Why wasn't Koepke disqualified for refusing to play?  It seems obviously unfair to me that he got away with not playing in those conditions, whilst others had to.

The exciting finish doesn't change anything.  Great major setups have had boring finishes.  Carnoustie in 99 had possibly the most incredible finish of all but  few ever argued in its favour.  I think there's two questions the R&A should ask themselves:

• Is St Andrews still a challenge to modern professionals?  Well, Sunday had a scoring average of 69.71.  The cut, despite a pretty strong breeze from about midday on Thursday, was even par - the second lowest ever in a major championship.  Five players finished 14 under or better (I can't remember another major with quite so many so far under par). 

• Can it cope with modern golf?  For the third consecutive major held at the course, play had to be delayed due to high winds.  This was despite the course being soft.  Is it fair to continue to ask people to pay £80 a day when there's a pretty decent chance play will be suspended?  Imagine you'd spend hundreds to go on Saturday, it'd have been a pretty awful experience.  Or you'd spend the week at St Andrews - having saved up all year - only to find play extended to Monday and that you'd miss the finish.  Even for those who went on Monday, many had to leave long before the end because of the poor transport links back to the west.  And, even without the suspensions and delays, is there a worse major championship course for spectators? 

I love St Andrews, I love the Old Course, but I'm not sure it's fair to continue hosting majors there.

[Will Lozier]

My use of the word "awful" was pretty clearly in reference to the logistical mess of canceling a day's play and the constant stopping and starting of play through two rounds. It's no surprise that a competitive tournament broke out when the winds finally settled to a speed of between 0 and 15 mph.


Make no mistake, though. A three man playoff on a Monday afternoon doesn't make up for the fact that the game's most revered piece of ground, and specifically one of the best par 3s in the world, was altered in the name of:


1. Avoiding wind delays
2. Challenging professionals, which the R&A has deemed critical to keeping The Old Course relevant


The changes weren't merely controversial. They were also ineffective at accomplishing both stated goals. Play was postponed on multiple occasions due to issues on the very green that was most significantly and most controversially altered to avoid postponement of play. And while winds were high, with accounts consistently placing them in the 25-30 mph range with gusts near 40, they weren't anything that anyone on this forum hasn't played in before. Scottish golf's national slogan of "Nae wind, nae golf" should probably be updated to "Nae breeze, nae golf."


Personally, I blame the players, and particularly Brooks Koepka, for the silly wind delays. His group essentially forced a stoppage of play on Saturday when he simply refused to step up and hit a putt because the ball would oscillate when he stood over it, and god forbid a player disrupt his pre-shot routine due to weather. His group forced the committee's hand, and given the option of assessing slow-play penalties or stopping play altogether, the committee chose the former. This is a dangerous precedent to set, and I don't expect it to be the last time we see players simply refuse to play when the weather doesn't suit them. I also blame Peter Dawson for altering the green in the first place, and Martin Hawtree for failing to have the foresight to advise his client that balls would still oscillate in high winds at Open green speeds due to the exposure of the surface regardless of how he adjusted the slope.


As to goal #2, when the wind speeds were in that 0-15 mph window in which The Old Course is now playable, the course was toothless. It's great that the leaderboard ended up being crowded and the Monday finale was competitive, in spite of its poor attendance and TV ratings. It was not, however, challenging. Given that the R&A has stated that keeping The Old Course relevant to professionals is a critical goal, this is another dangerous issue. I expect more ineffective changes to be made to the course after this tournament, and that's a poor tradeoff for a three-man playoff.

You sound like my 4 1/2 year old at her worst. Then again, she would be able to admit her foolishness eventually.


It was a GREAT tournament as so many here have stated already, full of intrigue, drama, incredible golf amongst a phenomenal leaderboard, and yes, a bit of controversy (standard in today's world of pampered professionals). Why don't you give Billy Horschel a call - I'm sure you two would hit it off.

[Jason Thurman]

You must be a very proud father. As to Horschel, I'd send him a DM on Twitter but he blocked me after I made fun of his comments about the greens at Chambers Bay. You know the feeling.


I completely agree with Michael.

[Ryan Coles]

I've found the new definition of oscillating very interesting.

The term now encompasses a two foot putt being blown off the green without the player touching it.

You guys are good on architecture. When it comes to the R&A, championship golf and the silly concept of par, most of you play off 28.

[Jon Wiggett]

Taken from another post.

"Peter Dawson on the new 11th green: “What we have now is a green that will still be puttable in a high wind, which it wasn’t before. It was this green that caused the suspension of play back in 2010."

I guess this says it all about Mr. Dawson's judgement in certain matters. Perhaps they could plant trees around the green instead

[jeffwarne]

Peter Dawson on the new 11th green: “What we have now is a green that will still be puttable in a high wind, which it wasn’t before. It was this green that caused the suspension of play back in 2010."

Why wasn't Koepke disqualified for refusing to play?  It seems obviously unfair to me that he got away with not playing in those conditions, whilst others had to.

The exciting finish doesn't change anything.  Great major setups have had boring finishes.  Carnoustie in 99 had possibly the most incredible finish of all but  few ever argued in its favour.  I think there's two questions the R&A should ask themselves:

• Is St Andrews still a challenge to modern professionals?  Well, Sunday had a scoring average of 69.71.  The cut, despite a pretty strong breeze from about midday on Thursday, was even par - the second lowest ever in a major championship.  Five players finished 14 under or better (I can't remember another major with quite so many so far under par). 

• Can it cope with modern golf?  For the third consecutive major held at the course, play had to be delayed due to high winds.  This was despite the course being soft.  Is it fair to continue to ask people to pay £80 a day when there's a pretty decent chance play will be suspended?  Imagine you'd spend hundreds to go on Saturday, it'd have been a pretty awful experience.  Or you'd spend the week at St Andrews - having saved up all year - only to find play extended to Monday and that you'd miss the finish.  Even for those who went on Monday, many had to leave long before the end because of the poor transport links back to the west.  And, even without the suspensions and delays, is there a worse major championship course for spectators? 

I love St Andrews, I love the Old Course, but I'm not sure it's fair to continue hosting majors there.

absurd conclusions

no majors should be held at any course where there has been a delay for say rain, or a thunderstorm?
Imagine if you saved up for Masters ticket (a lot more than 80 pounds) and a thunderstorm washed out 3/4 of the day's play. It happens regularly at Augusta.

Why not just chop a shot off a par 5 and play 9 as a par three and there's your -7 winner and your +2 cut.

St. Andrews isn't the problem
"modern" golf or more to the point, "modern" golfers might be

[Michael Tamburrini]

Peter Dawson on the new 11th green: “What we have now is a green that will still be puttable in a high wind, which it wasn’t before. It was this green that caused the suspension of play back in 2010."

Why wasn't Koepke disqualified for refusing to play?  It seems obviously unfair to me that he got away with not playing in those conditions, whilst others had to.

The exciting finish doesn't change anything.  Great major setups have had boring finishes.  Carnoustie in 99 had possibly the most incredible finish of all but  few ever argued in its favour.  I think there's two questions the R&A should ask themselves:

• Is St Andrews still a challenge to modern professionals?  Well, Sunday had a scoring average of 69.71.  The cut, despite a pretty strong breeze from about midday on Thursday, was even par - the second lowest ever in a major championship.  Five players finished 14 under or better (I can't remember another major with quite so many so far under par). 

• Can it cope with modern golf?  For the third consecutive major held at the course, play had to be delayed due to high winds.  This was despite the course being soft.  Is it fair to continue to ask people to pay £80 a day when there's a pretty decent chance play will be suspended?  Imagine you'd spend hundreds to go on Saturday, it'd have been a pretty awful experience.  Or you'd spend the week at St Andrews - having saved up all year - only to find play extended to Monday and that you'd miss the finish.  Even for those who went on Monday, many had to leave long before the end because of the poor transport links back to the west.  And, even without the suspensions and delays, is there a worse major championship course for spectators? 

I love St Andrews, I love the Old Course, but I'm not sure it's fair to continue hosting majors there.

absurd conclusions

no majors should be held at any course where there has been a delay for say rain, or a thunderstorm?
Imagine if you saved up for Masters ticket (a lot more than 80 pounds) and a thunderstorm washed out 3/4 of the day's play. It happens regularly at Augusta.

Why not just chop a shot off a par 5 and play 9 as a par three and there's your -7 winner and your +2 cut.

St. Andrews isn't the problem
"modern" golf or more to the point, "modern" golfers might be

Sorry Jeff, if I wasn't clear - I actually agree that modern golf and modern golfers are the problem.  And I brought up  the suspension of play  because it's happened for 3 straight majors at St Andrews, each time because of high winds.  In the north east of Scotland, a course not able to cope with high winds is a pretty big problem.  But it's not the fault of the Old Course that the modern game demands quick greens and that the powers in charge believe they should be running at 10. Even on Monday - after all that had happened - the BBC were reporting that the greens were running at 10.6. 


Maybe a change of par is the next step to defending the course.  It's happened before, so it's not like it's unprecedented.  And the 5th isn't really a par 5 anymore at the top level.  It'd also be nice to have a par 4 on the front 9 which wasn't a wedge  approach shot during the Open.

[Adam Lawrence]

A 600 yard par four??

[jeffwarne]

Peter Dawson on the new 11th green: “What we have now is a green that will still be puttable in a high wind, which it wasn’t before. It was this green that caused the suspension of play back in 2010."

Why wasn't Koepke disqualified for refusing to play?  It seems obviously unfair to me that he got away with not playing in those conditions, whilst others had to.

The exciting finish doesn't change anything.  Great major setups have had boring finishes.  Carnoustie in 99 had possibly the most incredible finish of all but  few ever argued in its favour.  I think there's two questions the R&A should ask themselves:

• Is St Andrews still a challenge to modern professionals?  Well, Sunday had a scoring average of 69.71.  The cut, despite a pretty strong breeze from about midday on Thursday, was even par - the second lowest ever in a major championship.  Five players finished 14 under or better (I can't remember another major with quite so many so far under par). 

• Can it cope with modern golf?  For the third consecutive major held at the course, play had to be delayed due to high winds.  This was despite the course being soft.  Is it fair to continue to ask people to pay £80 a day when there's a pretty decent chance play will be suspended?  Imagine you'd spend hundreds to go on Saturday, it'd have been a pretty awful experience.  Or you'd spend the week at St Andrews - having saved up all year - only to find play extended to Monday and that you'd miss the finish.  Even for those who went on Monday, many had to leave long before the end because of the poor transport links back to the west.  And, even without the suspensions and delays, is there a worse major championship course for spectators? 

I love St Andrews, I love the Old Course, but I'm not sure it's fair to continue hosting majors there.

absurd conclusions

no majors should be held at any course where there has been a delay for say rain, or a thunderstorm?
Imagine if you saved up for Masters ticket (a lot more than 80 pounds) and a thunderstorm washed out 3/4 of the day's play. It happens regularly at Augusta.

Why not just chop a shot off a par 5 and play 9 as a par three and there's your -7 winner and your +2 cut.

St. Andrews isn't the problem
"modern" golf or more to the point, "modern" golfers might be

Sorry Jeff, if I wasn't clear - I actually agree that modern golf and modern golfers are the problem.  And I brought up  the suspension of play  because it's happened for 3 straight majors at St Andrews, each time because of high winds.  In the north east of Scotland, a course not able to cope with high winds is a pretty big problem.  But it's not the fault of the Old Course that the modern game demands quick greens and that the powers in charge believe they should be running at 10. Even on Monday - after all that had happened - the BBC were reporting that the greens were running at 10.6. 


Maybe a change of par is the next step to defending the course.  It's happened before, so it's not like it's unprecedented.  And the 5th isn't really a par 5 anymore at the top level.  It'd also be nice to have a par 4 on the front 9 which wasn't a wedge  approach shot during the Open.

Sounds like we are on the same page-which is probably absurd

I continue to beat a dead horse-and will continue.
Faster greens ONLY make courses EASIER for pros (especially when the jump is simply from 8 to 10) and carry the risk of making a course unplayable in the shocking event of high wind near an ocean.
Hot balls and drivers continue to ENLARGE the game, changing the requirements and ENLARGE the corridors and space required, as well as causing slower play due to longer waits for short holes to clear.
 Kind've like driving a Hummer and running around chastising the world about environmental sustainability.
There's plenty of Kool-Aid being passed around by the manufactures and while I expect many PGA paid players and GOLFNOW/GOLFGALAXY punters to drink it, I'm always amazed when I read some of the more architecturally savvy posters hear downplaying what I believe is the singlemost important factor affecting architecture and the game itself today-and while it may not affect what you think is your own game-it does by raising prices, the length of time it takes (at least) the group in front of you to walk way back etc.  we all share the same course no matter what tees you play.

[JJShanley]

Jason, fair enough, but I'm with Niall that calling it an 'awful Open' was a definite case of a premature ejaculation.

And those of us who hoped that Paul Lawrie would win based on the two early rounds suffered from premature jock elation.

[Sean_A]

Alright, alright....if General Sherman will get off the distance soapbox I will happily take the blame 


Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

I continue to beat a dead horse-and will continue.
Faster greens ONLY make courses EASIER for pros

Jeff,

It amazes me that most people just don't get this point. The faster the green the bigger the hole effectively becomes thus it is easier to hole out on fast greens than slow greens. Add into this the fact that faster greens need to be flatter therefore easier to read then they become doubly easy. This is a case of the masses and the experts being hoodwinked by the golf industry.

Slower greens with more contours are the way to get the scores higheras well as allowing for firmer greens.

Jon

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()