Royal Melbourne was too easy

[Peter Pallotta]

You know what I think RM was most of all?
Itself.
The course was pretty much exactly what it purports to be.
I can't remember many big tournaments/majors where the golf course seemed so comfortable in its own skin.
I can think of several big tournaments where the course seemed at war with itself -- with its architectural essence.
And because RM so happily and blithely continued to be what it always was, I didn't even notice that the pros were 'shooting low scores'.  It's as if it just stood back and watched, absolutely secure in itself, and said:
'Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn'.

[Chris Kane]

I agree Peter, but isn't this at least partly a function of the matchplay format?


It allows us to focus on the shot-making, because the scores don't matter.

[Tim Leahy]

I would love to see a President's or Rider Cup at Cypress Point or Spyglass Hill.

[jeffwarne]

While RM was incredible...Brandell Chamblee(of all people)said it best last night."Width and angles produce the most compelling golf and shotmaking,but technology has neutered or at least reduced this in many cases,due to wedge approaches negating most angles for elite players"(less so in the case of RM due to the firmness and setup)
Nonetheless, such design produces the best golf for the rest of us, but we risk someone neutering that every time a higher stimp than before is reached.

[Tom_Doak]

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. 

Peter:


Thanks for doing that, but I disagree with your conclusion.  It may look like the top of the leaderboard at Augusta, but this was the whole field, not just the leaders, and not all of them are playing at the top of their games right now.  The scoring average for the day at Augusta is not under 69 very often.

[Peter Pallotta]

Chris K -
you're right, it very probably does have much to do with the format.
And yet, watching the best (ie Tiger, especially) having to choose and then be able to hit the right shot time and time again made me almost forget that it was 'match play' -- the 'golf' was so compelling!
     

[Peter Flory]

The beauty of match play is that every player felt pressure on nearly every hole.  I only looked up those scores because I was curious.  I realized that I didn't really know who played well and who didn't.  The attention was on every player no matter what, so the absolute quality of their play wasn't very relevant. 


While RM was pretty easy for these guys, it was also very dangerous.  That is really what makes the Masters historically fun to watch.  Birides and eagles are out there, but so are bogeys and doubles.  It's not nearly as much fun to watch if it is just pure easy and danger isn't lurking.  And 2 putts for the win wasn't an easy thing in most cases. 

[Alan Ritchie]

Adjusted par like andy Johnson always says! makes sense to me. But what is the adjusted par for RM, 68/69?

[Mike Hendren]

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.
erent courses in different settings

For a minute there I could have sworn you were describing Augusta National.  But the lemmings praise one and demonize the other.

[Jerry Kluger]

The problem that I saw was there wasn't enough of a penalty for missing a fairway.  It reminded me of Pinehurst #2 during the last US Open where the plants in the waste areas that were designed to create risk for missing a fairway, never really got going because of a lack of rain so shots from the waste areas were not that difficult. 


I also remember when the US Am was played at Chambers Bay and each round the players got better and better as they understood how to play the course. My recollection was that in the end 3 of the 4 semi finalists were the top 3 amateurs in the world. Proving to me that the course played true to form.

[Eric LeFante]

While RM was incredible...Brandell Chamblee(of all people)said it best last night."Width and angles produce the most compelling golf and shotmaking,but technology has neutered or at least reduced this in many cases,due to wedge approaches negating most angles for elite players"(less so in the case of RM due to the firmness and setup)
Nonetheless, such design produces the best golf for the rest of us, but we risk someone neutering that every time a higher stimp than before is reached.

I saw Brandel's comments as well and agree with them. He also said he thought this course was so wide off the tee that it favored the Americans and the International team would have had a better chance of winning if the fairways were narrower (see Europe's strategy).


For tournament golf (not just professional) can fairways be too wide? Does RM really test one's game off the tee? Does there need to be a distinction between courses that are fun to play for all and courses that test every aspect of one's game? Clearly Augusta started as the former and gravitated towards the latter.

[John Kavanaugh]

If those who created this game had intended for everyone to swing maniacally at their driver they would not have worn a coat and tie.

[JESII]

They wore a coat and tie to clean out the pig sty in those days...


What would we all have thought if they moved the hole locations just a bit closer to the edges (of slopes or bunkers) and there were a few disasters? I would have applauded and am certain the scores would have been higher.


Does it matter? All the matters to me is if they need to control the ball to succeed...sure looked like if they lost control of even a single shot they had to work their tails off to make a par.


I would be curious how many drivers a middle distance guy like Schauffle, or Cam Smith hit there? If it's at least 5 or 6, the course did it's job in that test in my opinion...

[Tom_Doak]

I would be curious how many drivers a middle distance guy like Schauffle, or Cam Smith hit there? If it's at least 5 or 6, the course did it's job in that test in my opinion...

Jim:


I think this is one of those things that has lost its meaning in the last twenty years.


Back in its day, the driver was the hardest club in the bag to hit consistently well, so the idea of testing the player's ability with the driver meant something.  Nowadays, though, it's the easiest club in the bag to hit.  Why should we care if players use it often?  Why should we even encourage them to do so?  Just playing Devil's Advocate, really, but what's the difference between "making" guys hit driver and letting them hit 3-wood?

[Mike Hendren]

I liked the fact that there seemed to be more long (50 yards +/-) bunker shots near the greens.  Then again execution by the players was outstanding, perhaps because of the absence of grooves in the sand and the fact that balls migrated to flat level lies in the middle of those bunkers. 

Bogey

[JESII]

Tom,


With greens like these, I disagree with you that the driver is the easiest club to hit.


US Tour set ups have placed the least consequences on the driver through soft greens and perfect green side bunkers but a course like RM seemed to provide a real advantage to the guy that could hit it in the correct portion of the fairway.


#1 seemed a good example of that. If you blasted away with your driver on the days that #1 played short, you had every chance of running through the fairway and into some sandy areas on the right about 40 - 70 yards from the green. A couple guys did that and struggled.


So to your question of why does it matter...in my opinion, not testing the driver (with a handful of holes that provide a real advantage to good drives) would be similar to not testing the putter. You could reduce the putting test in a couple of ways, but none of them seem viable. Keep in mind, I'm only advocating a handful of holes really ask you to hit driver to keep your head above water...not all of them.

[JESII]

#2 seemed to carry a significant advantage for a good drive. As did #4 due to the severity of the approach.

[Thomas Dai]

One of the nicer, yes nicer, aspects of watching play on TV from RM was where the ball finished when a player hit a wardward shot on a firm turf, short grass course.
Many an ‘interesting’ problem resulted with the players attempting some imaginative recoveries, some more successful than others.
The guys (and gals) we watch on TV are wonderful players and to see them play non-regulation shots from unusual positions highlights their exceptional shot-imagination and shot-making skills and makes fascinating viewing.
And for those who play or appreciate the intricacies of positional golf, playing the angles etc, in maybe a more defensive manner, well there is both a golf-skill and a mental/patience/self-control skill in playing in this manner which can be appreciated too.
And unlike soooo many courses these days Royal Melbourne permitted these skills to shine.

Atb

[Jonathan Mallard]

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.

Mike,


(And everyone else)


For my curiosity, and as a discussion point, how much slower would the course have had to have been to see any marginal change in the clubs hit into those greens?


Note that I said "marginal" and not "meaningful."

[Jeff Schley]

Because distance wasn't at a premium for this venue with fast and hard conditions, such as The Open, a senior player could have competed and would have done quite well.

[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.

Mike,


(And everyone else)


For my curiosity, and as a discussion point, how much slower would the course have had to have been to see any marginal change in the clubs hit into those greens?


Note that I said "marginal" and not "meaningful."

Jonathan.


Slower? As in having the ball run less? The 'new fairways' (put in for the 2011PC) are noticeably softer and slower than the old couch (bermuda) fairways. The club didn't have a fairway irrigation system until the late 1980s.
The new fairways arguably make the course easier off the tee because the ball doesn't run into trouble as easily - and that was always a problem because of the many tee shots hit to angled fairways. There aren't many holes where you drive down a fairway straight on to the tee.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

By whom? Scoring averages aren't plummeting like this post implies (to me anyway, and if I'm misreading it, okay). The first 59 was shot quite awhile ago on bumpier greens and all around poorer conditioned courses. The average golfer still has a mid-teens handicap index (though it has dropped a bit over the past few decades)… but… I just think par is not nearly as endangered as you seem to feel it is.

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.

A good number would would see their handicap increase slightly. It's sometimes much easier to shoot 74 from 6950 than it is to shoot 69 from 6200.

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.

Did Alister MacKenzie envision green speeds of 12 or 13 and fairways that stimped at 10 or 11?

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.

This applies as well. Match play is much more "pedal to the metal."