Could today's fiasco present the "Masters ball" moment we've been awaiting?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Let us pray.

The media do not seem to be buying the "damned wind" R&A excuse and instead are laying blame at agronomical trickeration necessitated by I&B regulatory failure.

[Jon Wiggett]

Let us pray.

The media do not seem to be buying the "damned wind" R&A excuse and instead are laying blame at agronomical trickeration necessitated by I&B regulatory failure.

Mark,

excuse my ignorance but I&B stands for......?

[Peter Pallotta]

No, Mark, that is not the modern way. Whether you are Madonna or Peter Dawson or Kanye West or Mike Davis, the ethos is the same: you never apologize, never admit a mistake, never change directions, and never listen to your betters. In fact, no one is your better: no one is wiser than you, no one kinder, no one more understanding or loving, no one more talented or in possession of some expertise that you are lacking. It doesn't matter if you're not a golf course architect, you still know best; and everyone else is a tool for your use, or, to put it more effectively, just part of your (support) team, helping you to realize your vision, however banal or puerile or misguided or destructive that vision might be. Leave your mark -- above all else, leave your stamp and mark on the world.

Peter 

[Chris Roselle]

Mark, they said on the broadcast that most of the exposed greens were stimped at 8.3!!!!  Let that sink in.  While I agree they probably shouldn't have even started play today I don't think you can fault the R&A with the way they set up the course.

[Ben Sims]

No, Mark, that is not the modern way. Whether you are Madonna or Peter Dawson or Kanye West or Mike Davis, the ethos is the same: you never apologize, never admit a mistake, never change directions, and never listen to your betters.

Peter

Peter,


There's a flip side to that coin. The modern way also involves everyone being a critic. No opinion however misguided or uninformed is dismissible. Shock statements rule the written word. Whomever decided that severe adjectives and adverbs were the new writing style will--I hope--one day see the error in that style. Additionally, there seems a modern willingness to make excuses for and protect those in our world that need it least. As it applies to this weekend as well as four weekends ago, the willingness of the golf media to lament the decisions affecting the poor golfers has been regrettable. But unfortunately, it has driven online interest in the summer majors.

Count me in the camp that believes that the R&A and USGA try to make good decisions under difficult circumstances. I don't think a nefarious group of individuals sit in a dark room looking for ways to foul up their championships. I admire the flawed person that steps into the breach and tries to make their little chunk of the world better. And in this modern world, good on them for not reacting to the negative whim of every opinion.

[Peter Pallotta]

Very well put, Ben. Indeed that is the other side of the coin. But to put the question succinctly (and maybe too bluntly): does it seem to you then, as someone who has both commanded men and been under the command of others, that modern-day leaders like Mike Davis and Peter Dawson embody the best of what leadership implies?


Peter 

[Ben Sims]

Very well put, Ben. Indeed that is the other side of the coin. But to put the question succinctly (and maybe too bluntly): does it seem to you then, as someone who has both commanded men and been under the command of others, that modern-day leaders like Mike Davis and Peter Dawson embody the best of what leadership implies?


Peter

Peter,


It's a well-crafted question, that one. Because by simply saying yes, I ignore obvious issues with decisions made by each person and their respective body. If I answer a simple no, I ignore the unknown subtleties of commanding a massive operation. Bottom line is this, are the respective organizations using thoughtfully crafted objectives to meet their stated mission? Again, if everyone is a critic, then the only opinion that should matter is the organization's opinion. Because every decision made is a net loss against the contrasting opinions of the mob. Since you broached the topic of the military, I think most commanders care deeply about public opinion. But only as it applies to interest from congress or the President. When I'm in a sticky situation with a formation of expensive aircraft and a couple dozen aviators, the last thing I'm thinking of is what the media is going to write about it.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ben - keep answering tough questions like that and you'll be a 4-star general before you're 50! 


My opinion/perspective is not worth much, I'm the first to grant -- but from my from I can see/read Davis and Dawson are certainly very successful leaders. They managed to rise to the top of their respective organizations and quickly solidified their holds; they clearly steer their ships in exactly (and only) the directions they themselves want to; they have made sure that no one ever hears even a hint of internal disagreements, or of anyone challenging them from within; they have effectively closed the door on any and all external scrutiny, even from their own stakeholders (e.g. USGA members); and they are very skilled communicators and self promoters. Yes, very successful leaders, especially in the modern sense. But something, for me, is amiss.


I don't know much military history; but, while the remarkable George Patton was a very successful leader, I think I'd have been much happier serving under Dwight Eisenhower. The latter seemed to have less ego, and so was a clearer and more long range thinker/planner. 


 

[Ben Sims]

I don't know much military history; but, while the remarkable George Patton was a very successful leader, I think I'd have been much happier serving under Dwight Eisenhower. The latter seemed to have less ego, and so was a clearer and more long range thinker/planner.

Peter,


One could make a solid argument that Eisenhower was an effective thinker/planner precisely because he had Patton at his disposal.  Same with Lee and Stonewall Jackson. Bringing it back to architecture, same with Doak and his talented field Generals.


I think leaders are only as effective as their capacity for "sicking their dogs" on objectives. In that sense, Davis and Dawson have a pretty solid team of people around them. One can always doubt the intellectual realities of the decisions those men have made. But hindsight analysis is rarely accomplished with less than 20/20 vision.

[Doug Siebert]

Mark, they said on the broadcast that most of the exposed greens were stimped at 8.3!!!!  Let that sink in.  While I agree they probably shouldn't have even started play today I don't think you can fault the R&A with the way they set up the course.

I heard them say that, but I find it difficult to believe.  Did you see the shot of them stimping through the tunnel of plastic containers to shelter the test from the wind?  That ball rolled a hell of a lot further than 8.3 feet, looked like more than 10 feet to me. I think the R&A is trying to cover up their gigantic mistake by making that false claim.

This isn't like 2010 when a quick random squall blew in for an hour. The forecast has called for gusts exceeding 40 mph all week, so it wasn't a surprise. The greenskeepers at TOC will know how fast they can let the greens get at a given wind speed before they have this problem. The R&A were not caught off guard, they were caught with their pants down. We could have seen a great test with the entire field playing the third round in today's wind if the greens were properly set up, instead we have a day wasted, and a Monday finish.

[jeffwarne]

Mark, they said on the broadcast that most of the exposed greens were stimped at 8.3!!!!  Let that sink in.  While I agree they probably shouldn't have even started play today I don't think you can fault the R&A with the way they set up the course.

It is ironic that a rain softened course could've had a reversion to the mean if they could've played today.
I will say it was windy when I was boarding a plane in Edinburgh today but I think more prevention could have been applied earlier (Thursday-Friday)
and I remember when 8 was pretty fast!


I heard them say that, but I find it difficult to believe.  Did you see the shot of them stimping through the tunnel of plastic containers to shelter the test from the wind?  That ball rolled a hell of a lot further than 8.3 feet, looked like more than 10 feet to me. I think the R&A is trying to cover up their gigantic mistake by making that false claim.

This isn't like 2010 when a quick random squall blew in for an hour. The forecast has called for gusts exceeding 40 mph all week, so it wasn't a surprise. The greenskeepers at TOC will know how fast they can let the greens get at a given wind speed before they have this problem. The R&A were not caught off guard, they were caught with their pants down. We could have seen a great test with the entire field playing the third round in today's wind if the greens were properly set up, instead we have a day wasted, and a Monday finish.

[Ben Sims]

I heard them say that, but I find it difficult to believe.  Did you see the shot of them stimping through the tunnel of plastic containers to shelter the test from the wind?  That ball rolled a hell of a lot further than 8.3 feet, looked like more than 10 feet to me. I think the R&A is trying to cover up their gigantic mistake by making that false claim.

Doug,


Are you telling us that you can discern a 1.7 foot difference in the roll of a golf ball through upside down plastic tubs at an oblique angle on television? That's impressive. I'm curious, was it a downhill, uphill or side hill roll? Also, was the green rolled and mowed after play? Was there any hand-watering done to the green between play passing the 11th and the camera shot you cite? Which television service do you use that has a measurement scale at the bottom of the screen because I think that would be a terrific feature for my cable provider.


PPallotta,


See my previous post about everyone being a critic.

[Matthew Mollica]

MarkB - getting back to the original question.


Would a Masters Ball be heavier, and if so, would it have allowed play to continue today, with all else being equal?


A wonderful first ten posts gents.


And Ben, I'm going to employ "that's a well-crafted question" as an opening defense in future. Well done.


Matthew

[David Kelly]

I've seen the Dunhill Cup played in windier conditions but I guess the green speeds were slower which allowed play to continue.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Jon, I&B = implements and balls. Shorthand for equipment.

Mark, they said on the broadcast that most of the exposed greens were stimped at 8.3!!!!  Let that sink in.  While I agree they probably shouldn't have even started play today I don't think you can fault the R&A with the way they set up the course.

Chris, here is a Dawson quote from today:

Q. What is the stimpmetre reading for the Old Course for The Open Championship?

PETER DAWSON: Well, we've been targeting between 10 and 10-foot-6, and we were achieving that every day, but we have kept the 11th green about six inches slower than those readings, and we've been consistently able to achieve that each morning.

Great posts EVERYONE keep em coming - great exchange Peter and Ben and I think the "metaphorical general" you really want isn't Eisenhower. He got his job because the president couldn't spare Marshall, a man called the greatest American to out on a uniform since Washington.

Consider how few men on the street appreciate Marshall -- or who even know who he was.

[David Kelly]

Consider how few men on the street appreciate Marshall -- or who even know who he was.

Hah, at this point in our country, few people know who Eisenhower was.

[Jon Wiggett]

Mark,

thanks for the answer which makes things clearer. As for Mr. Dawson's quote, I would take it with a pinch of salt as he has a track record of altering the facts to suit the audience.

Jon

[Don Mahaffey]

Well, my critique is those big rolly polly greens are more difficult for the pros of today if they are slow not fast. 

And we also know the course is much harder in a strong wind.

Lombardi didn't win every game, nail every draft pick, or always call the perfect play. You can be very good at what you do and still F up once in awhile.    It is the failure to acknowledge the occasional hiccup and acting like you are perfect that creates more critics.

[Peter Pallotta]

Two Generals, A and B. Both are smart enough to know that taking The Hill is likely a key to the offensive; but General A isn't experienced enough to realize that taking The Hill will cost the lives of 1,000 of his men, and so he quickly and authoritatively and proudly announces his orders, both to his colonels and to some trusted Stars and Stripes insiders. (The media, then and later, will call him a great general and a bold decision-maker, and suggest that the loss of a thousand lives, though a tragedy, must be considered a necessary part of war and in fact a prelude to complete victory. Later in his life General A will run for Vice-President along with/to balance out an overly cerebral Democrat from Maine.) General B, meanwhile, IS experienced enough to know the costs involved, and so he carefully weighs the decision, taking a lot of time with it, struggling within his mind as to whether The Hill is actually important enough to lose 1,000 men, and his heart and soul heavy and in deep anguish at the thought of the wives and children and mothers these men will leave behind. (The media, then and later, will imply that he is a weak-willed and indecisive man, and will question his leaderships skills and even suggest that, if he'd had the courage and fortitude to act more quickly, not that many men would've died. In his later years, General B will write some fine history books, but otherwise fade into obscurity.) In the end, General B concludes that the taking of The Hill is indeed of vital importance, and, after discussing it one last time with his colonels, quietly lets them know of his decision. Both General A and B order an assault on The Hill; and in both cases lose 1,000 men. So, who is the better General? In my view, of course, it is General B.  Not a good or appropriate analogy; but I was trying to expand on my previously implicit distinction between a "successful" leader and a "great" one, and make clear my belief that, in the modern world, we have many, many General As (i.e. CEO As) but fewer and fewer General Bs -- an ever increasing number of "successful" ones, and an ever decreasing number who seem to understand what greatness really is.

[Sven Nilsen]

Peter:


If they were both working under "orders," General B should have been court-marshalled.


Sven

[jeffwarne]

.

Mark, they said on the broadcast that most of the exposed greens were stimped at 8.3!!!!  Let that sink in.  While I agree they probably shouldn't have even started play today I don't think you can fault the R&A with the way they set up the course.

Chris, here is a Dawson quote from today:

Q. What is the stimpmetre reading for the Old Course for The Open Championship?

PETER DAWSON: Well, we've been targeting between 10 and 10-foot-6, and we were achieving that every day, but we have kept the 11th green about six inches slower than those readings, and we've been consistently able to achieve that each morning.

If they were targeting 10-10.6 (as Dawson said) they ffffed up) 25-40 mph winds were forecast for days
My question would be why target that with the forecast?

Dawson's quote would seem to validate Doug Siebert's anecdotal TV observations, and discredit those who said they were 8.3. or Dawson failed at his target speed by about 2 feet.

The golf world has been screaming for return by Tiger Woods and many couldn't (and still can't) imagine a world without him---yet look at the great Majors and other bright spots (Ricky Fowler etc.)we've had this year--all without watching a swearing pouty Tiger every time something doesn't come off perfect for him.
Pro golf seems better than it's been in a long time-

Now try to imagine greens slightly slower with more contours, and pins actually placed on that contour affecting approaches, recoveries AND putts.
It could happen-and we would all be just fine

[Doug Siebert]

Are you telling us that you can discern a 1.7 foot difference in the roll of a golf ball through upside down plastic tubs at an oblique angle on television? That's impressive. I'm curious, was it a downhill, uphill or side hill roll? Also, was the green rolled and mowed after play? Was there any hand-watering done to the green between play passing the 11th and the camera shot you cite? Which television service do you use that has a measurement scale at the bottom of the screen because I think that would be a terrific feature for my cable provider.

You could clearly see the ball rolling in the tubs, and compare the length of the tubs with the length of the stimpmeter which is known.  It isn't that hard.

[Ben Sims]

Are you telling us that you can discern a 1.7 foot difference in the roll of a golf ball through upside down plastic tubs at an oblique angle on television? That's impressive. I'm curious, was it a downhill, uphill or side hill roll? Also, was the green rolled and mowed after play? Was there any hand-watering done to the green between play passing the 11th and the camera shot you cite? Which television service do you use that has a measurement scale at the bottom of the screen because I think that would be a terrific feature for my cable provider.

You could clearly see the ball rolling in the tubs, and compare the length of the tubs with the length of the stimpmeter which is known.  It isn't that hard.

Which roll was it? The uphill, downhill or sidehill? I assume you know how a stimp works, with measurements being taken in multiple directions to negate the effect of slope.


I'm not trying to be difficult. My point is that television doesn't really show you the whole story. There were a number of posters that thought they had the real skinny on what was what at Chambers Bay due to their astute television-watching skills. Many of the posts were directly opposite in fact to what was actually on the ground. I don't think any of us have a bead on what the stimp of the 11th green is. But it honestly doesn't matter. The ball would not stay at rest on the green during a wind gusts of 30mph and over. I don't need a stimp number to know that it wasn't playable.

[Paul Gray]

Mark,

thanks for the answer which makes things clearer. As for Mr. Dawson's quote, I would take it with a pinch of salt as he has a track record of altering the facts to suit the audience.

Jon

Quite right Jon. Dawson is a fine example of just how far you can get with little talent but an ability to schmooze and bullshit.

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's Dawson's explanation of the start/stop from the Open Championship web site.

For the conspiracy theorists, he could be making it all up, but it does sound like a reasonable approach.  Seeing all the infrastructure and services involved in putting the championship on, not to mention $4 or 5 M worth of paid ticket fans hanging about on what turned into a glorious warm sunny day,and a second round to be completed there was no doubt a lot of pressure in their minds to press on.  The wind increased and that was that.

Now the R&A is going to refund 60% of the Saturday 80 pound ticket price while only charging 10 pounds for Monday's round.  Big financial loss to them not to mention all the headaches of extending the infrastructure and services into Monday.

If somehow they had been able to prep that green so it could be used in those winds, I think play that day would have been a farce.  It was just too darn windy.

I don't get the I&B rules angle.  Fast greens preceded the ProV1.



“It started this morning when we woke up to the power of the wind we were broadly expecting. It was very strong. We had to take a few steps structurally to make sure we didn’t get blown away – especially with the TV towers – and then between 6.00 and maybe 6.45 we spent a great deal of time out at the far end of the golf course.

“Traditionally, here at St Andrews, if the 11th green works, then everything works, and we putted and marked balls, and we placed them back and putted again and, while it was very windy, we did not get one ball that moved so we took the view the course was playable.

However very soon after play began, balls did, in fact, start to move, which was very different to what we had experienced up to quarter to seven and that ended up in a suspension of play,” he added.

“What had happened, and the wind readings show it, is that after seven o'clock the wind speeds increased by about six miles an hour and that was enough to tip it over the edge.