[Michael Morandi]

In his post round remarks, Chamblee questioned the USGA’s John Bodenhamer about the value of angles/strategy in today’s pro championship game, arguing  that the powers that be are out of touch with how long  and accurate the elite players are. Wide fairways meant to make the player think about angles are an invitation to low scores as are 13.5 stimped greens that effectively eliminate some of the most challenging pin positions. He’d like to see the greens stimp at 11 this week to enable tougher pin positions. Chamblee said that only tight fairways, tall rough and trees can counter low scores. He actually bemoaned the current deforestation trend and is not in favor of dialing back the ball. He is distinctively at odds with the USGA. In his view, LACC is a great members course but not a championship one that tests the top players. He intimated that rather than roll back the ball, designers should build championship courses and praised TPC Sawgrass as the one that the tour players have yet to figure out. Bodenhamer is sticking to a plan that adds length today and is praying that the weather will produce fast and firm conditions and a better test. He was quite honest about his disappointment with today’s conditions and scoring.

[Niall C]

And what's wrong with lower scores if it allows players to get those lower scores by using angles and through their own good play ?


Niall

[Sean_A]

In his post round remarks, Chamblee questioned the USGA’s John Bodenhamer about the value of angles/strategy in today’s pro championship game, arguing  that the powers that be are out of touch with how long  and accurate the elite players are. Wide fairways meant to make the player think about angles are an invitation to low scores as are 13.5 stimped greens that effectively eliminate some of the most challenging pin positions. He’d like to see the greens stimp at 11 this week to enable tougher pin positions. Chamblee said that only tight fairways, tall rough and trees can counter low scores. He actually bemoaned the current deforestation trend and is not in favor of dialing back the ball. He is distinctively at odds with the USGA. In his view, LACC is a great members course but not a championship one that tests the top players. He intimated that rather than roll back the ball, designers should build championship courses and praised TPC Sawgrass as the one that the tour players have yet to figure out. Bodenhamer is sticking to a plan that adds length today and is praying that the weather will produce fast and firm conditions and a better test. He was quite honest about his disappointment with today’s conditions and scoring.

My first comment would be its been one round.

The second comment would be nearly all the shots I saw from the thick fairway rough were not entertaining to watch.

Finally, why it is there an issue with weather partially dictating scores? Add in some tougher hole locations and things can get spicey without resorting to Oak Hill/Winged Foot presentation. Some days its tough and on other days its not. Its pretty easy to create a par wins setup, but that imo that is not good entertainment.

Ciao

[Cal Seifert]

The replay is on now on Golf Channel for those who want full context.


I like the idea of slower greens that break more. Not sure if the pros think that is any more challenging though.


There is a crossroads right now in the professional game. If we want 384 yard drives like Rory’s yesterday to be the norm, I don’t think we will make it to the next US open at Merion without the course looking like a bowling alley.

[Ian Andrew]

Oakdale was narrowed for the Canadian Open. Where they didn't like a fairway bunker or cross slope they played something shorter. The big take-away from the data was its not just one guy. It's usually the entire field playing positional golf on a hole when it makes better sense. The only time this didn't happen is when a par four is excessively long, they tended to hit driver.

It was the same at St. George's the year before, a lot less drivers than you would expect.
They play such a clever, calculated game. And they are that good.

Let them score. Trying "too hard" to stop them with a bad set-up is worse than just letting them score.

[Steve Lapper]

 Brandel (full disclosure:my business partner in a golf-related venture) is half-right. John Bodenhamer is also half-right. Conversely, they are both half-wrong.


 The Lords of Far Hills are indeed out-of-touch with the elite pro game. They are also inherently conflicted, needing the outsized revenues from their once-a-year US Open to subsidize all their other competition activity. They are also effectively neutered by their fear of ruinous litigation to take on the manufactuers and firmly institute a ball-driven bifurcation.


 Bodenhamer had to be part delusional and part historically inept to not understand that Mother Nature is the final arbiter of any golf course set-up. April-May-June in West LA is traditionally marked by a the appearance and lingering of a very moist marine layer.  No amount of creation of defense around angles and pin placements will deter the world's best golfers from hitting precision bombs and throwing darts at a dampened course. Heck, let's remember that with all the Sub-Airs $$$ can buy at ANGC won't stop the pros from going low, why should an elegant and natural LACC North be different?


  LACC is an unbelievable and uber-worthy golf course, yet when the turf has been perpetually moist (persistent marine layer) for months and reasonable stimps are mandated, there is simply no way to prevent multiple low scores. The USGA was counting on the LA sun to bake out it's canted fairways and push more drives into the Bermuda rough. That didn't happen yesterday, and won't today or over the weekend. That's on the USGA and their tunnel vision.


 Brandel rightfully points out all of the above, yet he's wrong in his fundamental thesis. If heaving and tilted fairways were running super fast, the angles and pin placements would have indeed defended par substantially better. We see this all the time at The Open and occasionally at places like Shinnecock. Brandel is most definitely learned about the pro game. It's his milieu and focus of study. His architectural education is advancing, but needs more seasoning.


He is DEAD WRONG about advocating for more trees!

[Jerry Kluger]

You put the top pros on a golf course with 5 par 3s and 3 par 5s and they are going to shoot low scores period.  They will try and firm it up some more and put in some really difficult hole locations but anytime they are playing par 3s with the ball on a tee they are going to shoot low scores barring really high winds or extremely firm greens.  Perhaps this is a wake up call to the USGA and the PGA Tour that the great classic courses are defenseless against today's top golfers using today's equipment.  The vast majority of golf courses used by the PGA Tour, USGA, etc. are not owned by the Tour so they don't have to spend the millions of dollars to buy land and lengthen courses where it is possible to do so; the rest of the courses are going to wind up being too easy and cast aside.

[Peter Sayegh]

I like the idea of slower greens that break more. Not sure if the pros think that is any more challenging though.

A former caddie to Bob Estes once remarked how much the pros hated slower greens. It accentuated any flaws in their putting stroke.

Let them score. Trying "too hard" to stop them with a bad set-up is worse than just letting them score.

+1000. It's a competition. Low score wins. Don't bastardize a course for member/USGA "ego." Anyone here gonna decline playing LACC if the champion cards -18?

[John Crowley]

Let them score. Trying "too hard" to stop them with a bad set-up is worse than just letting them score.

+1,000 - Why all this “wailing and gnashing of teeth” when elite players shoot low scores?
Do some folks not enjoy and appreciate seeing continuous progress in levels of athletic achievement?
Was there consternation after Roger Bannister cracked the 4 minute mile and when whoever ran 100 meters in less than 10 seconds?
Etc., etc, etc.

[Dan_Callahan]

It’s become a staple of spring … Tour pros show up for practice rounds at the US Open course. Videos are posted of balls disappearing in deep, thick rough. Balls are dropped on a high point if the green and they slowly roll 50 yards down a gradual slope and off into the fairway. Players and commentators talk about how “brutal” the conditions are. Players then go out and post wildly low first-round scores.


Absent either a crazy setup or gale-force winds, in a field of 150+ of the best players in the world, some number will always find a way to shoot under par.


What’s more troubling is watching Rory hit his opening tee shot 380 yards and we aren’t even amazed anymore. Or hearing the commentator saying about pretty much any player in the field “he’s got 230 yards. This is just a smooth 6-iron …”


The ball goes too far. They are playing a different game than 99.999999% of the rest of us. With how far AND how straight they hit it, I find today’s tournament golf much less interesting to watch compared to 20 years ago. Maybe players have improved exponentially, but I think mostly it’s a result of equipment. Switch out the ball for a balata or a Professional 90 and I think it would suddenly become must-watch TV.

[Kalen Braley]

Brandel couldn't be more off base on the ball.  Rolling back the ball is exactly how they restore toughness aka "desired" scores.

Lets see how they do on those 500 yard par 4s when their best drives are only 280 and they're approaching with a long iron/hybrid from 220+ yards. Even hole 8 certainly wouldn't be a push over par 5 where they are hitting 3 wood, mid iron into the green.

[jeffwarne]

There have been some great points made on this thread.


Greens that were alive and smooth(even in the afternoon) were part of what wasn't mentioned.
they are often super fast and bumpy which definitely protects par....


Brandel is right about slower greens and interesting pins.
Not so much about everything else.
That's true in general, but people have simply substituted the word "good" for fast, and will actually embrace bumpy, unhealthy greens, even aerified greens, if they are fast.
bonkers to me.


As someone pointed out, it's one round.




FYI, I tried a mini driver yesterday, which is 1/2 inch longer than the driver I grew up with.
My clubhead speed is 7 mph slower with it than my gamer and similar to my 3 wood.

Forgetting the ProV1 multi layer effect, the rebounding face, the waffle sized low spinning head(all over the face now)and the ultra light shaft...




These guys are really, really good, and are fully optimized.
But we need to stop kidding ourselves that all courses need to be adjusted, changed, redesigned, lengthened, narrowed, firmed up, kill the grass and bumpied up, or God forbid TPCed/watery graved up to "protect par".


If protecting par is the goal(I'm not saying it is), the answer is stunningly simple.
Have any of them take out Jack Nicklaus's clubs, put some new grips on, and see how they do at LACC in any conditions.

[Brett Meyer]

Everyone loves to use a case of something going wrong to make points about their bigger argument. LACC played too easy yesterday? 'See, that's what happens when you widen the fairways and remove the trees!' Or alternatively: 'See, the equipment is out of control!'

If we just focus on this case though, isn't the issue really simple? Didn't they just need to run the sprinklers less in the run-up to the opening round? I get that there's a marine layer and that helps soften things up. But my understanding is that it hasn't been raining in LA over the past few days. And the course is mostly bermuda and bentgrass. Don't these grasses require pretty regular watering to stay soft? I'm skeptical that the relative softness of the course is just about the marine layer.

If so, then maybe the 'problem' of low scoring solves itself over the next few days just by turning the sprinklers off.

[Tim Martin]

The expectation that scoring will be higher in the U.S. Open makes the setup the toughest task in major championship golf by a long shot. This doesn’t exist in the other three majors where low scores are both expected and applauded. John Bodenhamer has more eyes on him today than Jerome Powell at a Federal Reserve meeting going into a recession.

[Craig Sweet]

I haven't seen much of the course....my live stream is more interested in guys putting....never the less it has been less than compelling viewing for a US Open in my opinion.  I was hoping for something special, but got the Buick Open.

[Richard Choi]

Angles really only matter (at this level of play) if the ground is firm. If you can carry the ball all the way and stop it on the dime, angles do not play any factor. It is unfortunate to see the weather de-fang the course, but they could have also dried out the course leading to the event. The course looks way too lush for my eyes.

[Anthony Butler]

The Lords of Far Hills are indeed out-of-touch with the elite pro game. They are also inherently conflicted, needing the outsized revenues from their once-a-year US Open to subsidize all their other competition activity. They are also effectively neutered by their fear of ruinous litigation to take on the manufactuers and firmly institute a ball-driven bifurcation.

Someone mentioned on one of the "Live From the US Open" telecasts earlier in the week that more than one ball manufacturer has submitted a prototype of the rolled back ball to the USGA for testing. I don't recall it was Bodenhamer who said it, but it makes sense that some USGA representative would release that information as it implies the manufacturers are willing to co-operate at this point.

[Ben Hollerbach]

We're starting to see the same old mantra of “just let them score” again.  Essentially trying to argue that it’s ok for the pro’s to shoot way under par in a major championship at a golf course we respect and admire.

This is flawed thinking.

Golf is unlike many other sports, in that you are not actually playing against another person or team.  The “competitor” is the course.  Anyone familiar with Bobby Jones’s writings knows he didn’t get this concept at first, but once he began playing 'ole man par', he went on a Championship tear.

The quality of the competitor matters.  A competitor that is not nearly equal doesn’t really tell us much about the true quality of the winner.  Deep down I think we all know this, and its why we want our championships to at least stay near par.  The winner need’s to have bested a competitor that was near his or her equal.

When Alabama football beats their scheduled cupcake FCS team, do we really care by how much they won by? But if they beat Georgia, it matters greatly if it was close or if it was a blowout.

Imagine if the college football national championship wasn’t a game between the two best teams in the country, but instead, the two best teams had to play a shared FCS opponent, and the champion was whomever scored the most points.  Would that feel like a respectable way to identify the best team?  Of course not.  Just because one team won by 50 and the other by 60, doesn’t really tell you who among the top is truly better. It would also be quite boring.

Now if both teams had to play another shared top 10 FBS team and the champion was awarded to the team that scored the most points against the shared opponent, it would  still be strange, but it would  also clearly be a better way to determine who's the best team. This is essentially how the championship was awarded for decades before the College Football Playoffs.

The same thing is true for golf courses.  An easy golf course does a poor job at identifying the overall better player. This is why architecture can’t just ignore or make excuses for architectural issues that allow a championship course to play easier and get beaten up. The course is the real competitor and it needs to hold it’s own in order to identify a true champion.

If golf courses with wide fairways, or without trees, in a parkland setting can’t defend par, then they are no longer championship viable golf courses.  Without wind, rough, and or trees; the course is unable to present a significant enough challenge to identify the best.
   

[Alex Miller]

We're starting to see the same old mantra of “just let them score” again.  Essentially trying to argue that it’s ok for the pro’s to shoot way under par in a major championship at a golf course we respect and admire.

This is flawed thinking.

Golf is unlike many other sports, in that you are not actually playing against another person or team.  The “competitor” is the course.  Anyone familiar with Bobby Jones’s writings knows he didn’t get this concept at first, but once he began playing 'ole man par', he went on a Championship tear.

The quality of the competitor matters.  A competitor that is not nearly equal doesn’t really tell us much about the true quality of the winner.  Deep down I think we all know this, and its why we want our championships to at least stay near par.  The winner need’s to have bested a competitor that was near his or her equal.

When Alabama football beats their scheduled cupcake FCS team, do we really care by how much they won by? But if they beat Georgia, it matters greatly if it was close or if it was a blowout.

Imagine if the college football national championship wasn’t a game between the two best teams in the country, but instead, the two best teams had to play a shared FCS opponent, and the champion was whomever scored the most points.  Would that feel like a respectable way to identify the best team?  Of course not.  Just because one team won by 50 and the other by 60, doesn’t really tell you who among the top is truly better. It would also be quite boring.

Now if both teams had to play another shared top 10 FBS team and the champion was awarded to the team that scored the most points against the shared opponent, it would  still be strange, but it would  also clearly be a better way to determine who's the best team. This is essentially how the championship was awarded for decades before the College Football Playoffs.

The same thing is true for golf courses.  An easy golf course does a poor job at identifying the overall better player. This is why architecture can’t just ignore or make excuses for architectural issues that allow a championship course to play easier and get beaten up. The course is the real competitor and it needs to hold it’s own in order to identify a true champion.

If golf courses with wide fairways, or without trees, in a parkland setting can’t defend par, then they are no longer championship viable golf courses.  Without wind, rough, and or trees; the course is unable to present a significant enough challenge to identify the best.
 

This is flawed thinking.


The champion is determined not by final score in and of itself but by score compared to competitors (who play the same course). Interpretation of the quality of the course can never come down to just score. Bay Hill determining a winner this year at -7 and Pebble having a winner at -6 last time it hosted... are those venues of equal value? I say no but it's certainly much more subjective.


I also don't believe that the final score of a round can imply that a player has faced a certain number of challenges or not. These guys are good and some meet the challenge shot after shot. If the questions being asked provide a greater reward when met, does that make them worse questions or perhaps ones which provide clearer answers? It's all graded on a curve anyway so more right answers means absolutely nothing in the end, as long as the questions are good ones.

[Charlie Goerges]

We're starting to see the same old mantra of “just let them score” again.  Essentially trying to argue that it’s ok for the pro’s to shoot way under par in a major championship at a golf course we respect and admire.

This is flawed thinking.

Golf is unlike many other sports, in that you are not actually playing against another person or team.  The “competitor” is the course.  Anyone familiar with Bobby Jones’s writings knows he didn’t get this concept at first, but once he began playing 'ole man par', he went on a Championship tear.

The quality of the competitor matters.  A competitor that is not nearly equal doesn’t really tell us much about the true quality of the winner.  Deep down I think we all know this, and its why we want our championships to at least stay near par.  The winner need’s to have bested a competitor that was near his or her equal.

When Alabama football beats their scheduled cupcake FCS team, do we really care by how much they won by? But if they beat Georgia, it matters greatly if it was close or if it was a blowout.

Imagine if the college football national championship wasn’t a game between the two best teams in the country, but instead, the two best teams had to play a shared FCS opponent, and the champion was whomever scored the most points.  Would that feel like a respectable way to identify the best team?  Of course not.  Just because one team won by 50 and the other by 60, doesn’t really tell you who among the top is truly better. It would also be quite boring.

Now if both teams had to play another shared top 10 FBS team and the champion was awarded to the team that scored the most points against the shared opponent, it would  still be strange, but it would  also clearly be a better way to determine who's the best team. This is essentially how the championship was awarded for decades before the College Football Playoffs.

The same thing is true for golf courses.  An easy golf course does a poor job at identifying the overall better player. This is why architecture can’t just ignore or make excuses for architectural issues that allow a championship course to play easier and get beaten up. The course is the real competitor and it needs to hold it’s own in order to identify a true champion.

If golf courses with wide fairways, or without trees, in a parkland setting can’t defend par, then they are no longer championship viable golf courses.  Without wind, rough, and or trees; the course is unable to present a significant enough challenge to identify the best.
 

What? If the score is high enough does the golf course get the trophy?

[Ben Hollerbach]

What? If the score is high enough does the golf course get the trophy?

Actually, it use to be said at times that "the golf course won". But they don't seem to say that anymore, do they?

[Ben Hollerbach]

Alex,
I didn't say the quality of the golf course came down to just score.  That would be silly. I said a championship course can't yield really low scores.  If it does then it's not a championship course. 

And you are correct that a higher score doesn't mean a player faced a certain number of challenging shots.  I said that a low score means they didn't face enough challenges.

So we are in agreement.

I also don't believe that the final score of a round can imply that a player has faced a certain number of challenges or not. These guys are good and some meet the challenge shot after shot. If the questions being asked provide a greater reward when met, does that make them worse questions or perhaps ones which provide clearer answers? It's all graded on a curve anyway so more right answers means absolutely nothing in the end, as long as the questions are good ones.

If its all graded on a curve, what does it tell you about the test when:
A) 2 players set a record for the best score ever recorded for the test
B) No player taking the test scored worst than 79?

When's the last US Open where someone in the opening round didn't shoot in the 80's, Has there ever been an opening round in an US Open where not a single player in the field shot in the 80's or higher?

[Alex Miller]

Alex,
I didn't say the quality of the golf course came down to just score.  That would be silly. I said a championship course can't yield really low scores.  If it does then it's not a championship course. 

And you are correct that a higher score doesn't mean a player faced a certain number of challenging shots.  I said that a low score means they didn't face enough challenges.

So we are in agreement.

I also don't believe that the final score of a round can imply that a player has faced a certain number of challenges or not. These guys are good and some meet the challenge shot after shot. If the questions being asked provide a greater reward when met, does that make them worse questions or perhaps ones which provide clearer answers? It's all graded on a curve anyway so more right answers means absolutely nothing in the end, as long as the questions are good ones.

If its all graded on a curve, what does it tell you about the test when:
A) 2 players set a record for the best score ever recorded for the test
B) No player taking the test scored worst than 79?

When's the last US Open where someone in the opening round didn't shoot in the 80's, Has there ever been an opening round in an US Open where not a single player in the field shot in the 80's or higher?

Does Augusta not provide enough challenges? Score to par wise yesterday was not anything we haven't seen there before.

[Kalen Braley]

Ben,

I understand your point in concept.  However when the course is altered so much just for one event, I think score becomes a lot more subjective and not very useful to determining "quality".  What would the finishing score have been in all those US Opens if they hadn't:

- Converted two par 5s to 4s?
- Brought the rough lines in for 20-25 wide fairways?
- Grown the rough to 4-6 inches?
- Let the greens bake out and tuck pins?
- Shave the banks to run errant balls into trouble/hazards?

If that's all it takes the same could be done to a local course here in Utah with 7500 yard tees and it will almost certainly produce a relatively high finishing score.  Does that mean the course would be promoted to among the greats?

[jeffwarne]

Re: identifying the best.
several have mentioned LACC(or an easier course) didn't provide  a sufficient test to identify the best player.



Is someone going to argue that a trending Rickie Fowler or firt 3 round major machine Xander Shauffele
didn't play "the best" yesterday.


in 1973, Oakmont was rain softened(it's always mentioned that way) and Miller shot 63.
Did they not identify the "best" he won 11 events the next 2 years and a major a year after that.


Also, it's only one round.


At least they're playing golf-not plinko.
and perhaps the greens will be alive for the members next month.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()