Royal Melbourne was too easy

[Tom_Doak]

Look at the scoring!  Patrick Reed would have had 64 yesterday with fours at the 17th and 18th, had he had to play them.  Tiger would have had 67 with the same finish.  Most of the field was under par!


/sarc


My point is, who the hell cares?  Everyone all week thought this was one of the best courses they'd ever seen, and that the setup was perfect.  But had it been four rounds of stroke play, someone would have been 10 or 15 under par, and lots of people would be tut-tutting about that.


We just need to get the discussion away from the card and pencil mindset.  We need more match play.  And we need more courses like Royal Melbourne.
 

[John Kavanaugh]

Exactly why the ball and equipment are perfect as they stand. Thank you.

[Sean_A]

Well sure, ignore what the best players do and it isn't an issue.  There simply aren't enough best golfer level mathplay events to show off the courses which really deserve to be seen by spectators in this light.  I think TOC is certainly a course which from a spectator PoV would be far better played as matchplay.  For stroke play the birdies come too easy and it gets boring watching golf for an afternoon of easy birdies.   

Happy Hockey

[JC Jones]

No matter what some may say, nobody wants to see professional golfers winning holes with bogey.

[BHoover]

No matter what some may say, nobody wants to see professional golfers winning holes with bogey.

Professional golfers still made birdies and pars with persimmon woods and balata balls.

[Thomas Dai]

Par, and it’s relationship to the pro game and amateur handicapping, whether for good or bad, is a long established benchmark within the game, but a benchmark that has become devalued over the last couple of decades, significantly devalued. Birdies and eagles are now expected, seen as routine even, whereas once-upon-a-time they were achievable but they had to be earned.

I believe the RM composite course, wonderful that it seemed to be, was a par-70 with two par-5’s, except they weren’t really par-5’s given that one was reachable for most of the guys we saw on TV this week with a mid-iron second shot and the other with a long-iron/hybrid second shot. Also most of the par-4’s seemed to be short-iron second shots often after less than a Driver from the tee whilst the par-3’s were being played with very short-irons.
The guys we see on TV are good, brilliant actually, but they now make courses, even great courses in firm and fast conditions with magnificent and very firm green complexes look relatively easy relative to the traditional par benchmark for a few reasons including equipment.

It would be interesting to know what posters herein hcps would be if they were hitting the sort of clubs highlighted above for second shots and tee shots on par-3’s? Quite a bit lower than they presently are I suggest, unless their hcps are already calculated from very front tees.

As to matchplay, yes more matchplay events would be nice, but it’s already hard enough to get the top level guys we see on TV travel too far for events and the likelihood of them being prepared to travel with the possibility of playing only one round isn’t I suggest high unless loads of appearance money or other inducements are offered. Lots of infrastructure costs and logistical issues as well to cover an event where many matches might not go to the 17th-18th holes but the occasional match goes down the 19th-20th where there might not be any cameras.

Atb

PS - some form of simulataneous co-sanctioned joint men and ladies event using both courses at Royal Melbourne would be nice. It was done Downunder earlier this year, and in the past, and in Victoria too.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Easy solution.  Stop keeping store.  Just report who’s leading and how far behind everyone is.  RM was the star of the show!

[Peter Pallotta]

It's a pleasure to see a course that defies easy categorization, and that seems to encompass/transcend the usual 'divides', e.g. penal-strategic, members course-championship test etc.
Different courses in different settings, but I think maybe a) that the same might've been said of Shinnecock, once, if it had been left alone and b) that Dr Mac had taken his appreciation for/understanding of  The Old Course's architectural 'essence' and refined, enhanced/magnified, and highlighted that essence, and yet at the same time made it more subtle.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Just curious.  How long was the composite course?  I don’t think the  NBC team ever said.

[Tom_Doak]

I believe the RM composite course, wonderful that it seemed to be, was a par-70 with two par-5’s, except they weren’t really par-5’s given that one was reachable for most of the guys we saw on TV this week with a mid-iron second shot and the other with a long-iron/hybrid second shot. Also most of the par-4’s seemed to be short-iron second shots often after less than a Driver from the tee whilst the par-3’s were being played with very short-irons.
.
.
.
As to matchplay, yes more matchplay events would be nice, but it’s already hard enough to get the top level guys we see on TV travel too far for events and the likelihood of them being prepared to travel with the possibility of playing only one round isn’t I suggest high unless loads of appearance money or other inducements are offered. Lots of infrastructure costs and logistical issues as well to cover an event where many matches might not go to the 17th-18th holes but the occasional match goes down the 19th-20th where there might not be any cameras.

My call for more match play had nothing to do with the Tour, actually.  I think everyone else should play it more.  I know TV sponsors won't let the pros do it.


As to your comment on the approach shots, there were three holes on the Composite course [1-6-11 in this Composite routing, which are 3W, 10W, and 1E] where most of the approaches were chip shots.  Amazingly, they play in three different compass directions, so they vary in terms of being drivable from one day to the next.  That doesn't make the course any harder in relation to par, but it does reduce the number of wedge shots [what the old golf writers called pitches] that the course asks for.  And as you say, no hole is a real par-5 for the pros now, but that just takes away chip shot approaches and leaves them with a couple of longish ones.

[Tom_Doak]

   Just curious.  How long was the composite course?  I don’t think the  NBC team ever said.

 


It was 7,055 yards

[William_G]

Look at the scoring!  Patrick Reed would have had 64 yesterday with fours at the 17th and 18th, had he had to play them.  Tiger would have had 67 with the same finish.  Most of the field was under par!


/sarc


My point is, who the hell cares?  Everyone all week thought this was one of the best courses they'd ever seen, and that the setup was perfect.  But had it been four rounds of stroke play, someone would have been 10 or 15 under par, and lots of people would be tut-tutting about that.


We just need to get the discussion away from the card and pencil mindset.  We need more match play.  And we need more courses like Royal Melbourne.
 

++++++++++++++++++++++

[Mike_Clayton]

Exactly why the ball and equipment are perfect as they stand. Thank you.

John,


I watched Tiger play the first 10 holes yesterday. Alister MacKenzie would have loved the way he played - it was brilliant - but he'd have hated the clubs he was hitting into the greens.
It was far from what he unquestionably envisaged. We are not going back to 1926 but the 1980s or 1990s would only accentuate how great Tiger is.
Short irons and wedges into most holes and par fives reduced to middle irons isn't the test.

[Kevin Neary]

Shouldn’t low scoring be a good thing? Doesn’t it attract more people to watching the game?

[Kalen Braley]

And i'll bet he also didn't envision players driving the 6th hole on the composite course with 5 woods, and I think Ricky may have done it with a 3 iron IIRC...

[SL_Solow]

Kevin,
    How does low scoring make the game more popular?  If that were the case, all tour courses should be short with minimal hazards.  There are some of those and they don't seem to be the most popular.  RM was a great test, particularly once the ball hit the ground.  Think how much more interesting it would have been if the players had to hit and control longer clubs on their approaches.  Given the current equipment, we are unlikely to see that again from players at the highest levels.  Nor should we lengthen courses just to test the best.  So absent equipment changes, which I do not believe will ever occur, we have de facto bifurcation of the game.  There were always extreme differences in skill levels between the touring pros and amateurs but as the equipment has "improved", the distance differences have increased dramatically and so has the difference in the effective length of courses.  How that impacts one's view of the spectator value of the game is a personal decision but making courses easier to lower scoring would not be beneficial to my way of thinking.

[Thomas Dai]

Short irons and wedges into most holes and par fives reduced to middle irons isn't the test.

+1
Loved seeing the course at Royal Melbourne on TV though, the firmness and the importance of the angles etc. There was some excellent camera work too, more than usual I’d say, which showed course details not normally seen. It was also nocteiceble how firmness and short grass combined meant that shots hit askew went really wide, even into the scrub, which made for the type of recovery shots or attempted recovery shots not usually seen.
And Toms point about the 3 short par-4’s highlights where the game has gone over the last couple of decades.

Indeed I do wonder how often the TV pro’s find playing the game interesting and challenging in average tour events these days? In some ways Tiger, beautifully that he played, even seemed to be in second gear at times at Royal Melbourne and I recall hearing or reading that Seve would sometimes try spectacular shots purely to combat the boredom of regular play.

As Mike says “Short irons and wedges into most holes and par fives reduced to middle irons isn’t the test”

Atb

[Jeff Schley]

In general match play scores would be lower for guys go for it more often as the penalty for not pulling it off is just loss of one hole. Thus if in a medal play situation the scores would have been higher more likely. The drive able par 4's particularly would have yielded more caution.  BTW the longest par 3 yesterday was 177 I think, great layout.

[Carl Rogers]

RM: Only 3 Par 3's and 2 Par 5's for a Par of 71, right?
As to set up, doesn't the President's Cup at RM prove that the only way to defend par, if that is the objective, is narrow fairways, small greens & 6" rough
... which would be a profound tragedy at RM


Has not JN described RM as a good "Member's" course?

[Randy Thompson]

What a pleasure! The best golfing event in a long time! Congrats to all involved in all aspects. Debate the format all you want but the golf course was incredible! Looks to me like they sprayed salt water to get such definition between the fairways and rough and a lot of hand watering for a couple of weeks. I am going to need more proof to accept the soaking line theory!

[JESII]

We just need to get the discussion away from the card and pencil mindset.  We need more match play.  And we need more courses like Royal Melbourne.
 

As a devout card and pencil guy I take offense to this...


Agree with points 2 and 3 in this paragraph.


If the guys had 5 or 6 holes that more or less required a driver, that’s good enough for me.


The sooner tournament organizers reward ball control more and distance less the better.

[Pete_Pittock]

Let someone remember to bring this thread up in two years time.

[Tom_Doak]

We just need to get the discussion away from the card and pencil mindset.  We need more match play.  And we need more courses like Royal Melbourne.
 

As a devout card and pencil guy I take offense to this...

Jim:


You are welcome to torture yourself with that viewpoint all you want.


Just don't torture the rest of us!   

[JESII]

Forgot the...


/sarc

[Peter Flory]

Here are what the scorecards said for the final day's matches (keep in mind that certain shots were conceded or just picked up after the other guy won the hole).  So, actual scores would have been slightly higher than what the cards show.  On the other hand, guys gamble and it gets worse when in a stroke play tourney, they would have grinded out a bogey or a par. 

LEADERBOARD

-7 (16) REED
-6 (15) SUNGJAE IM
-5 (16) CANTLAY
-4 (F) OOSTHUIZEN
-4 (17) SMITH
-4 (16) WOODS
-3 (F) KUCHAR
-3 (F) HADWIN
-3 (17) XANDER
-3 (16) ANCER
-2 (F) LEISHMAN
-2 (F) DECHAMBEAU
-2 (17) SIMPSON
-2 (17) THOMAS
-2 (16) NIEMANN
-2 (15) WOODLAND
-1 (F) FINAU
-1 (F) MATSUYAMA
-1 (16) CT PAN
-1 (15) D JOHNSON
E (F) FOWLER
E (17) BYEONG AN
E (17) SCOTT
+4 (15) HAOTONG LI

AVE = 2.25 under par

Looks like a first round leaderboard at Augusta. 




Dustin Johnson really had an easy match.