News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Crowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #25 on: June 20, 2023, 06:01:35 PM »


I do not understand the blood lust for winning scores above par and shudder to think what it would take to actually make that happen in this era [besides very strong wind, and they'd surely have to postpone play in that case because the ball would move on the greens].  These guys are good, and so is the equipment they play with.


+1,000. Low score wins. No matter what it is.

Adrian_Stiff

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #26 on: June 20, 2023, 06:19:13 PM »
Yes
A combination of whats good for golf and good for turf.
The Players Club, Cumberwell Park, The Kendleshire, Oake Manor, Dainton Park, Forest Hills, Erlestoke, St Cleres.
www.theplayersgolfclub.com

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #27 on: June 20, 2023, 07:53:03 PM »
I imagine it’s quite a bit better in person. It is tough to show elevation changes on tv. Players had a chance to shine or fade away and they did.


It is much! better in person. The tv angles never adequately captured the great ground level views of every upcoming shot one has when playing the course. Having said that, the pushed back pro tees may have significantly altered the aesthetics and normal (member play) setups of some holes.


+1 great in person I don't think there's a shot not called for at LACC.


Regarding angles, I can't think of any hole besides 11 from the 290yd tee which goes back further to the left (so less across the fronting bunkers and less into the kick plate on the left)

Matt_Cohn

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #28 on: June 20, 2023, 08:11:31 PM »
The winner's tee shot on the last hole sliced more than 50 yards but still finished in the fairway.

Is that a "good test?"

WW


Geoff Shackelford noted somewhere that 18 fairway was narrowed significantly last summer, then some players saw it and didn't like it so it was widened again. I can confirm that the narrowed fairway was tough but awkward.

Sam Kestin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #29 on: June 20, 2023, 09:02:28 PM »
I thought the exam at this year's U.S. Open was deeply disappointing. Frankly, I have felt this way for the last few years as the USGA has made a fearful transition away from presenting the players with the "the toughest test in golf" and moved towards being "the second-toughest test in the month of June."


The USGA's Chief Championships Officer (John Bodenhamer) admitted there has been a change in their approach during a GolfChannel interview after the first round this year. He was asked, point-blank, if there was a conscious decision by the USGA after Shinnecock Hills in 2018 to not push the golf course too far to the brink in advance of the US Open. He confirmed that there had been. This unwillingness to take on risk in the presentation of the golf course has led to a dilution in the sternness of the challenges they are willing to present.

The fairway corridors at this year's U.S. Open were simply far too wide. There are a lot of ways you can present a great finishing hole to the players in the U.S. Open, but I don't think a four-par with a 57-yard wide fairway was one of them. If the last hole is designed to be a tough par hole, you should have to successfully navigate two exacting shots to make the two-putt four you need to win (think Shinnecock, Oakmont, Winged Foot) coming into the house. There was nothing exacting about the tee shot up the last this week.

The third hole was a joke and was absolutely torn apart by the players this year. There was negligible to zero strategy on the tee shot (basically everyone could carry the barranca on the left and most of them with less than driver) and, with the absurdly wide fairway, the closest thing the hole presented to a challenge was avoiding the divot farm that had built up in the fairway by the end of the week.

The USGA was in a catch-22 situation on the first hole, as the downhill hole was too short by modern standards to play as a five-par hole but the fairway bunkers were too short to play the hole as a four-par. Players who hit the fairway were frequently rewarded with middle irons into the green (I think Rory hit a 8/9 iron on Saturday) and the only players that I saw lay up were those who missed the fairway off the tee. There was no "momentous decision" as to whether or not to go for the green from the fairway. The problem was, if the USGA tried to set the hole up as a four-par, the fairway bunkers that were critical to the strategy of the hole off the tee would no longer be in play from the forward tee.

Fairway bunker placement was a problem off the eighth tee as well. Depending on how far back the tees were placed, the two fairway bunkers to the left of the eighth fairway were a maximum of about 235-240 yards to cover. Accordingly, rather than players being punished for cheating left off the tee and away from the barranca, those players were actually rewarded with frequent bounces out of the rough and down the hill to the same location where correctly played drives finished. Those safety pulls should have been penalized with a difficult fairway bunker shot played over the barranca to the lay up area. Instead, they often yielded the same result as an excellent drive.

I would add that fairway bunker placement was similarly an issue on the seventeenth. I don't have access to ShotLink, but I didn't see a single televised shot from the left side fairway bunker at the penultimate hole all week. I am sure I might have missed one, but that bunker was over 360 yards to reach it and, with the grading of the fairway down the left side, was near impossible to reach from the back tee employed during the championship. Accordingly, the challenge of trying to fit the tee shot into a relatively narrow (compared to other holes) corridor between the fairway bunker and the barranca was lost.


I took umbrage with some of the hole location choices as well. In some instances, the most difficult hole location on a given green was eschewed entirely. For example, the hole was never cut all the way in the left corner of the first green nor was it ever cut all the way in the back left corner of the final green. At the fifteenth, the hole was located in the lower bowl(s) on three of the four days and more challenging hole positions on the high-left side or just over the knob in the middle of the left side were left unused.

More frequently, however, the most difficult hole location was cheated a few steps away from the edge. On Sunday, there was room to move the pin on the second, sixth, eighth, seventeenth and eighteenth closer to the edges of the greens. On Saturday, the same could be said for the hole locations at two, six, seven and twelve. There are numerous examples of this from Thursday and Friday as well. More aggressive decisions in selecting the hole locations would have created more of a challenge both for the approach shot itself as well as missed short-side approaches.

Hindsight is of course 20/20, but the tee positions on the two monster one-shot holes (7 and 11) on Thursday seem to me to be obvious mistakes. These are supposed to be two of the harder holes on the golf course and the USGA knew going into the morning that the greens were going to be dramatically softer than they had expected. There was no compelling reason to cut the players a break here and these holes should have played to their full yardage on all four days of championship play.

A lot of this is small, nit-picky kind of stuff. However, when you add up these little decisions here and there in both the course design as well as the championship setup, the aggregated result is a test that was devoid of the kind of teeth that I have come to expect out of what is billed as the "toughest test in golf."

The big three majors (the Masters and the two Opens) each have their own unique character. The Masters is rich with the history and tradition that has accumulated over playing the exciting second nine at ANGC year after year. The Open Championship is all about the elements and the quirks of playing the links. The character of the United States Open Championship was that it was the most brutal examination in professional golf.

I hope the recent trend of the risk-averse USGA begins to reverse as we approach upcoming championships at Pinehurst, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Pebble and Winged Foot. I fear that, without a return to its roots, the character of America's national championship will continue to slip away.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #30 on: June 20, 2023, 09:10:06 PM »
Last 10 U.S. Open winning scores in relation to par:

-10
-6
-6
-6
-13
+1
-16
-4
-5
-9

Mean= -7.4

LACC was hardly an outlier.

US Open winning scores in relation to par at Pebble Beach
+2
-6
-3
-12
E
-13

It seems pretty specious to make a blanket judgment - must less indictment - of a golf course based on what the winner shot in relation to par. 

Have a scorching June, the usual dry winter, slow the fairways down, slow the greens down a foot and bring in more slopes, add half an inch to the rough, tuck more pins, all these things could substantially change the winning score and would have nothing to do with the golf course as it sits there.


David,

Couldn't agree more.

Going back near 1/2 century to 1975 ( the year after Irwin's infamous +7 at Winged Foot), the winning score has only been over par 7 times, and 4 of those just barely at +1.

On the flip side the winning score was -8 or better on 10 different occasions.

The judgement of LACC is both pre-mature and borderline absurd to say the least...

Matthew Delahunty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2023, 01:24:07 AM »
The winner's tee shot on the last hole sliced more than 50 yards but still finished in the fairway.

Is that a "good test?"

WW


Geoff Shackelford noted somewhere that 18 fairway was narrowed significantly last summer, then some players saw it and didn't like it so it was widened again. I can confirm that the narrowed fairway was tough but awkward.


I was there last August and the rough was being grown in on the left.  My understanding is that there was concern that, for a back right pin as seen on the final day, players would drive up the 1st fairway to give themselves the ideal angle into the hole.


18 was one of Thomas' half-par holes where the hole could be played as a par 4, but when the pin is placed in the right back corner next to the right hand trap, it can be played as a par 5.  For most pin positions, the ideal position on the fairway is from the right hand side of the fairway to give yourself an unimpeded shot to the green (the further left you are the more you play across the bunker).  So where Clark hit his drive was the optimal position for days 1-3.  Even if the fairway had been half as wide (as some have contended), the position in which his ball ended up would have still been on short fairway grass.

Matthew Delahunty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2023, 01:34:59 AM »
If Mito Pereira had to play the 18th at LACC over the 18th at Southern Hills, he'd be a major champion.


The 18th fairway at Southern Hills where Pereira went in the creek is about 57 yards wide.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2023, 03:18:04 AM »
LACC wasn't perfect, but what is? Some of the holes don't work as well as they might of 40 years ago, but that is an indictment of the USGA's failure to properly regulate equipment. All in all, LACC looked pretty damn good to me and the pro test was highly varied. I was entertained and that is the reason I watch golf.

I am not convinced by the tough as hell course set up for the US Open as a rich tradition. It was created in the 1950s at Oakland Hills and was generally set up this way with several notable exceptions. I would like nothing more than for the USGA to allow the characteristics of courses to shine rather than see courses butchered for a once a decade event.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2023, 08:27:44 AM »
LACC wasn't perfect, but what is? Some of the holes don't work as well as they might of 40 years ago, but that is an indictment of the USGA's failure to properly regulate equipment. All in all, LACC looked pretty damn good to me and the pro test was highly varied. I was entertained and that is the reason I watch golf.

I am not convinced by the tough as hell course set up for the US Open as a rich tradition. It was created in the 1950s at Oakland Hills and was generally set up this way with several notable exceptions. I would like nothing more than for the USGA to allow the characteristics of courses to shine rather than see courses butchered for a once a decade event.

Ciao




Concur
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2023, 08:49:44 AM »
great test, great course
It's all about the golf!

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2023, 09:14:33 AM »
I thought the tournament and the course were great.

I loved seeing the pros playing long irons to the par 4s and woods to the long par 3s.

It was difficult to see from the coverage, but it seems like the LACC site has a lot of movement. I understand some fairways had to be wide, as there are some quite severe slopes, e.g. 3rd, 6th and 8th. As Jeff wrote on another thread; why not raise the fairway cut height, so that we might see some side hill shots.

I think it was also nice to see that at times, it was possible to try and reach the green from the rough. If the only option was a hack out, what fun would that be?

In the UK & Ireland, back in the 1980s and 1990s, we usually only got one or two hours of the US majors on TV. The US Open was always a boring test of irons off the tee. It was pretty dull to watch. Sausage shaped fairways with thick grass around the greens.


With three monster par 3s and a few monster par 4s, was the par really 70?

What exactly do some people want?  ??? Pros hitting 225+ yds approaches to small hard greens surrounded by thick rough. Wouldn't the outcome be quite predictable? Balls bounding through the back of greens into thick rough.

I hope the USGA continue with their cautious approach with regard to US Open setups. What would have happened if the course setup was pushed to the the edge, and they lost control as they did at Shinnecock? The USGA would be rightly criticised.

We saw good golf, a great looking course, a great contest, a stern test, lots of birdies and eagles, several fluffed chips, and also lots of double-bogies or worse. The only downside was that Rory didn't win.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2023, 09:25:50 AM by Dónal Ó Ceallaigh »

Adam G

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2023, 09:40:32 AM »
I was there on Thursday and watched the weekend on TV so I can provide some perspective about how it was in person vs. looked on TV.


I thought it was phenomenal that the pros had every aspect of their game tested. We often don't see a lot of long irons and fairway woods. LACC gave a lot of that but also a lot of wedges and odd shots. It was a great test.


The main defense of the place is green firmness. I didn't think the greens were quite as firm as they may have hoped. I think that is due to the weather this year. I'm not an agronomy expert, but it was such a wet winter/spring in LA that they couldn't get it super firm while still keeping the turf healthy enough. The flip side of trying to dry it out is that the fairways ran a LOT. That's part of the architecture -- think 5 and 13 tee shots -- and is why it has so much width as they play effectively smaller. But with that firmness, the place played shorter. I recall seeing a quote from a player that it was playing 400 yards shorter than when he had played there in the past because of the speed of the fairways. There is a bit of a catch 22 there -- firmness is the defense but it shortens it. They did the best they can to counteract with way back tees (the tees on 16 and 17 were wild). But on a few holes -- notably the ones that people are complaining about like 3 and 8 -- there is nowhere else back to go.


Take 3 for instance. It is an AWESOME hole for the shorter hitter. It's 80 feet uphill and you need to fly it 250 with an uphill to cut off the finger of the baranca otherwise you bail left and have a weird sidehill lie into a tricky green. But the pros can all hit it so high and far that every single one carried that baranca and the balls all collected. The answer might be to lengthen it, but the second green is right there. The only answer would be to play from one of the forward tees on 17 over 2 green, but that's just not safe.


The same goes for 8. The tee is already right next to 7 green. There is nowhere to go back. I personally found the second shot very compelling, but the tee shot was kind of boring because you had a sideboard left.


This is the type of course that would benefit a lot from a rollback. But it would need to be a bigger rollback than what the USGA and R&A are proposing. We would need the fairway bunkers on 8 and the baranca on 3 to be hazards that aren't easily flown.

As for what the course looked like in person vs on TV, I thought that aside from 6 NBC did a poor job showing the elevation changes and slopes. They needed more low cameras, more drone flyovers, et cetera. The type of stuff CBS has been doing better on as of late. But if you are cheap enough that you can't pay for a blimp and go for the super noisy airplane, you aren't going to spend the money for the extra cameras and operators. I think the USGA is in a bit of a pickle with the current TV contract, and when they reduced commercials after last year's backlash they had to cut somewhere.


But in person the course is truly unbelievable. The scale was incredible. The slopes and greens brilliant. To give you some context, the first stretch of fairway on #8 had a huge slope that had to be seen to be believed -- 20-30 feet front the left to the right. 3 is 80 feet uphill. 4 dramatically downhill. It's a truly remarkable course.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2023, 09:42:15 AM by Adam G »

Jason Topp

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test?
« Reply #38 on: June 21, 2023, 11:31:50 AM »
I thought the exam at this year's U.S. Open was deeply disappointing. Frankly, I have felt this way for the last few years as the USGA has made a fearful transition away from presenting the players with the "the toughest test in golf" and moved towards being "the second-toughest test in the month of June."


The USGA's Chief Championships Officer (John Bodenhamer) admitted there has been a change in their approach during a GolfChannel interview after the first round this year. He was asked, point-blank, if there was a conscious decision by the USGA after Shinnecock Hills in 2018 to not push the golf course too far to the brink in advance of the US Open. He confirmed that there had been. This unwillingness to take on risk in the presentation of the golf course has led to a dilution in the sternness of the challenges they are willing to present.

The fairway corridors at this year's U.S. Open were simply far too wide. There are a lot of ways you can present a great finishing hole to the players in the U.S. Open, but I don't think a four-par with a 57-yard wide fairway was one of them. If the last hole is designed to be a tough par hole, you should have to successfully navigate two exacting shots to make the two-putt four you need to win (think Shinnecock, Oakmont, Winged Foot) coming into the house. There was nothing exacting about the tee shot up the last this week.

The third hole was a joke and was absolutely torn apart by the players this year. There was negligible to zero strategy on the tee shot (basically everyone could carry the barranca on the left and most of them with less than driver) and, with the absurdly wide fairway, the closest thing the hole presented to a challenge was avoiding the divot farm that had built up in the fairway by the end of the week.

The USGA was in a catch-22 situation on the first hole, as the downhill hole was too short by modern standards to play as a five-par hole but the fairway bunkers were too short to play the hole as a four-par. Players who hit the fairway were frequently rewarded with middle irons into the green (I think Rory hit a 8/9 iron on Saturday) and the only players that I saw lay up were those who missed the fairway off the tee. There was no "momentous decision" as to whether or not to go for the green from the fairway. The problem was, if the USGA tried to set the hole up as a four-par, the fairway bunkers that were critical to the strategy of the hole off the tee would no longer be in play from the forward tee.

Fairway bunker placement was a problem off the eighth tee as well. Depending on how far back the tees were placed, the two fairway bunkers to the left of the eighth fairway were a maximum of about 235-240 yards to cover. Accordingly, rather than players being punished for cheating left off the tee and away from the barranca, those players were actually rewarded with frequent bounces out of the rough and down the hill to the same location where correctly played drives finished. Those safety pulls should have been penalized with a difficult fairway bunker shot played over the barranca to the lay up area. Instead, they often yielded the same result as an excellent drive.

I would add that fairway bunker placement was similarly an issue on the seventeenth. I don't have access to ShotLink, but I didn't see a single televised shot from the left side fairway bunker at the penultimate hole all week. I am sure I might have missed one, but that bunker was over 360 yards to reach it and, with the grading of the fairway down the left side, was near impossible to reach from the back tee employed during the championship. Accordingly, the challenge of trying to fit the tee shot into a relatively narrow (compared to other holes) corridor between the fairway bunker and the barranca was lost.


I took umbrage with some of the hole location choices as well. In some instances, the most difficult hole location on a given green was eschewed entirely. For example, the hole was never cut all the way in the left corner of the first green nor was it ever cut all the way in the back left corner of the final green. At the fifteenth, the hole was located in the lower bowl(s) on three of the four days and more challenging hole positions on the high-left side or just over the knob in the middle of the left side were left unused.

More frequently, however, the most difficult hole location was cheated a few steps away from the edge. On Sunday, there was room to move the pin on the second, sixth, eighth, seventeenth and eighteenth closer to the edges of the greens. On Saturday, the same could be said for the hole locations at two, six, seven and twelve. There are numerous examples of this from Thursday and Friday as well. More aggressive decisions in selecting the hole locations would have created more of a challenge both for the approach shot itself as well as missed short-side approaches.

Hindsight is of course 20/20, but the tee positions on the two monster one-shot holes (7 and 11) on Thursday seem to me to be obvious mistakes. These are supposed to be two of the harder holes on the golf course and the USGA knew going into the morning that the greens were going to be dramatically softer than they had expected. There was no compelling reason to cut the players a break here and these holes should have played to their full yardage on all four days of championship play.

A lot of this is small, nit-picky kind of stuff. However, when you add up these little decisions here and there in both the course design as well as the championship setup, the aggregated result is a test that was devoid of the kind of teeth that I have come to expect out of what is billed as the "toughest test in golf."

The big three majors (the Masters and the two Opens) each have their own unique character. The Masters is rich with the history and tradition that has accumulated over playing the exciting second nine at ANGC year after year. The Open Championship is all about the elements and the quirks of playing the links. The character of the United States Open Championship was that it was the most brutal examination in professional golf.

I hope the recent trend of the risk-averse USGA begins to reverse as we approach upcoming championships at Pinehurst, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Pebble and Winged Foot. I fear that, without a return to its roots, the character of America's national championship will continue to slip away.


Thanks for weighing in against the grain Sam and doing so with specific examples!  I agree that the US Open is losing its identity a bit.  It is almost as if the PGA and the US Open have reversed roles.


 I can argue the change is good because it winds up being an example in the US of what golf should be.  I can also argue it is bad because the US OPen was traditionally the torture test on the calendar and one of the majors should fill that role. 

Ben Hollerbach

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Did the Course at LACC provide a good US Open Test? New
« Reply #39 on: June 21, 2023, 12:30:12 PM »
Thanks for weighing in against the grain Sam and doing so with specific examples!  I agree that the US Open is losing its identity a bit.  It is almost as if the PGA and the US Open have reversed roles.

I can argue the change is good because it winds up being an example in the US of what golf should be.  I can also argue it is bad because the US OPen was traditionally the torture test on the calendar and one of the majors should fill that role.

“There are two kinds of golf. There is golf, and there is tournament golf. And they are not at all alike, inside.”-Bobby Jones

What US Golf should be and what the US Open should be are not analogous with each other. I thinks it's fair to showcase an ideal of American golf to more players, but challenging to near impossible to do it under the highest of competitive standards. The ideal of American golf is not and should not be considered the ideal for competitive golf, the disconnect that exist in the game today is too great to try in accomplish both in the same setting.

It seems clear that in trying to match the two, the USGA has lost the identity of their greatest championship. Which would be fair if the USGA would go all in on that change and illustrate a new identity, but the presentation of the US Open is rife with double speak that leads to ambiguity as to their motives.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2023, 01:00:56 PM by Ben Hollerbach »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back