Is Bay Hill too penal to be firm?

[Ronald Montesano]

I heard the announcers, giddy in their ignorance, describe the needed approach to the 18th green as "you need to keep it between the rocks and the sand." Well, you couldn't get it close. Im landed it in the fringe, and there it stayed. Any ball that landed on the green, took off. Same with 17. Same with 16.


Had this been a US Open, they would have talked about losing the course.


Don't forget that thick 1974-Winged-Foot rough.


Is it even possible for a penal course to play fast and firm, and still be playable?

[Scott Warren]

Ronald,


Sunjae Im's approach landed in the fringe adjacent to the lake and released onto the green 13 feet below the hole. Hatton's final approach landed about six feet short of the hole and stopped on the green inside 25 feet. It was a good shot that got rewarded. Im took on more risk and had a putt about half as long from a preferable angle.


If players wanted to run a low fade up the green, the shot shape and green contour would have fed it to the hole, but that's not a shot professional golfers really hit anymore, because they are so infrequently asked to -- both by virtue of conditions and the fact they rarely hit a long enough iron into a par four.


Almost 30 per cent of the field (19 out of 69 players) shot +1 (73) or better today. Even yesterday, which was historically difficult, it was one-in-five (14 of 69). It was as hard as you'd probably want to see non-major golf set up, but it was a ways short of "losing the golf course".

[A.G._Crockett]

I'll admit to being a bit conflicted about what I watched on Sunday.  (I'll throw out Saturday because of the wind.)  I am solidly NOT in the camp of those that don't like shootouts down the stretch; I'd much rather watch the best players in the world showing why they are the best players in the world than see them playing defensively, which they largely had to do yesterday.  There isn't much enchantment in watching -4 win a golf tournament for me; I don't necessarily want to see -24, but there is a LOT of room in between.


But I didn't see anything about Bay Hill that reminded me of the train wrecks the USGA has caused/allowed over the years.  Bay Hill dried out in the wind, but I didn't see greens that looked dead, or putts that bounced their way to the hole, or any of that. 


Really, what Bay Hill reminded me most of is ME playing local senior tournaments on courses with rock hard Champion Bermuda greens in July and August and ONLY caring about the distance to the front of the green.  In my case, it's because I can't generate the sort of spin to hold those greens with the longer clubs that I'm hitting in, but it sort of netted out the same for those guys yesterday; if they carried their approaches too far or to the wrong side, they were hosed.  Some guys adjusted, some didn't, and that's ok, but it's not the same as the randomness that the USGA seems to introduce into the Open.

[Adam Clayman]

Isn't it just poor design if a course can't be negotiated under all conditions? Or, is it a misnomer to have expectations on concepts like GIR, or even Par, for that matter?


Lost the course? That's just too precious.


Players must adapt to conditions. Especially their mindset.
 

[Bruce Katona]

the breeze on saturday took much of the moisture out of htreens making it tough.....I thought that would play well into Rory's wheelhouse but alas, not to be.

[Buck Wolter]

Max Homa has a  podcast with Shane Bacon called Get a Grip -- and they went over the week today. Worth a listen as he was the only player to break par on Saturday (with a double on 18) and talks in detail about how difficult it was but how it rewarded ball striking. His description of his flop shank alone is worth a listen.

[jeffwarne]

With all due respect to The King, whose legacy makes it a premier event on the PGA Tour,
it's just another water laden penal unimaginative Florida course that played harder because wind and firm green conditions made landing areas shorter and closer to hazards.
That said, it seems to me the margins for landing a ball safely are greater than they were at PGA National, where it annually seems like they just play the same holes repeatedly.
And kudos to Bay Hill for returning to par 72, not taking the USGA inspired route of being "difficult" in relation to par, but simply just difficult(conditions especially).
I was possible to stop shots on the green from the fairway, it wasn't from the rough.
Hatton repeated looked shocked and commented on two occasions he couldn't have hit a better shot as his ball rolled over the green downwind from the rough. He made great recoveries in all instances, which is far more interesting than more drops....
Isn't that really the only reason to have rough at all?


It wasn't anywhere near some of the damage the USGA inflicts on the health of the turf at several US Open, and the greens, depite being quite firm, remained smooth-not plinko and bumpy.(probably because the experts were allowed to determine green preparations, not amateurs in the blue coats)

[Jim_Coleman]

   It looked to me like the course wasn’t in great shape.  Firm shouldn’t mean not much grass.  Fairways looked spotty and greens looked like they were top dressed.