[Steve Lapper]

Apparently, Brandel was sent (from several people) this post from Tom Doak on a related thread:


"Brandel’s take is exactly what we expect from a washed up short hitter who can’t compete.  “Thick rough and trees bring out true champions.”  That doesn’t work anymore, and it’s boring to watch.I have no more sympathy for the litany of posters who demand that the course “defend par”. 

Par was abandoned by the governing bodies 25-30 years ago and trying to fix that with a course setup once a year is pointless. LACC is a great course and if it is no longer a good enough test for great players, that just shows the fundamentals of equipment are out of whack."

Several people sent the above along to Brandel and he asked me if I would post the following as a direct response to Tom. Here it is:

"Someone should tell Tom Doak, that it’s not about “defending par” it’s about holding the best players accountable for the miss; to see if they can not only control their ball, but their emotions when they look down a ribbon of fairway that sits there like Dick Butkus brooding across the line saying there is going to be a price to pay unless you show extraordinary skill. And since he brought up what the game should forget, how about the lie that there is a single golfer alive who has a dispersion cone so small that they could ever think of chasing “angles” which given the length players hit the ball are just a romantic attachment to a bygone era. And I never said LACC wasn’t a great golf course, it’s just not a great US Open golf course. Unless the USGA no longer cares about finding out which player has the most control of their game and emotions over the course of the week contending for a national championship.

"Full disclosure: Brandel is close friend and business partner(in a golf entertainment company we are building). FWIW, his input has been all about strongly advocating for green grass features that emphasize pure fun for all levels of player. As expected, I am happy to see he avoided using any ad hominem style attacks to make his point.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I actually care little about Tom’s original point or Brandel’s response (which is just the same argument on either side we’ve heard 1,000 times).


I’m much more disappointed that people think it’s reasonable to snaffle a comment Tom made on here and send it on to Chamblee to elicit an argument.

[Tom_Doak]

I’m much more disappointed that people think it’s reasonable to snaffle a comment Tom made on here and send it on to Chamblee to elicit an argument.

There are lots of lurkers out there.  (Brandel could be one of them, for all we know.)


There are also lots of shit-stirrers throughout the world of golf, so anytime we have something to say, it could be magnified in that way.  I've got no problem with that.  I would have a problem if it crossed over into other media, or if he tried to use the TV platform to amplify it, because at that point it's one-sided; I don't have a chance to respond where anyone would hear.  But I don't think he would do that.


Brandel was a short hitter, though, wasn't he?  I was just pointing out that this is the usual response from short hitters to low scoring . . . it was the same exact thing Eduardo Molinari said about The Renaissance Club the first year, when it got soft and scores were so low.  A week before that tournament, the European Tour were worried the playing surface was going to get out of control and the scores would be too high!  It's never as much about architecture as everyone pretends it to be.  The weather is a huge factor, and setup has to react to those conditions, but they can only do so much in response soft conditions because THEY ARE ALREADY LIVING ON THE EDGE EVERY WEEK with regard to hole locations and green speeds . . . they can't make them much tougher than normal.


And they are living on that edge because they have lost the plot re equipment, not because I cleared too many trees.


I didn't say anything about chasing angles in my post so I don't know why he went there. 


He didn't say too much I disagree with . . . only the general idea that "a great course" should not necessarily be "a great U.S. Open course".  If he hates the idea of bifurcation, then why would he make that distinction? 


My other question would be how narrow U S Open fairways should be with modern equipment. 

[Dan_Callahan]

How narrow the fairways should be at a US Open is probably variable depending on the hole. As is how deep the rough should be. But when, after round one, players were hitting 66 percent of the fairways when the tour average for a typical PGA event is 58 percent feels wildly off.

[Mark Fedeli]

If professionals are no longer chasing angles, Brandel shouldn’t tell us, he should tell the commentators on his own channel who say that’s what the players are doing on every single hole. They even put graphics up showing the best routes. Whether the player’s dispersion cone allows them to execute it every time doesn’t mean most of them aren’t trying to.


And since we’re sending messages to Brandel, please ask him to unblock me on Twitter. If it helps, tell him I think LIV is a garbage product for people with trashbag taste.

[Niall C]

And since he brought up what the game should forget, how about the lie that there is a single golfer alive who has a dispersion cone so small that they could ever think of chasing “angles” which given the length players hit the ball are just a romantic attachment to a bygone era. And I never said LACC wasn’t a great golf course, it’s just not a great US Open golf course. Unless the USGA no longer cares about finding out which player has the most control of their game and emotions over the course of the week contending for a national championship.

As to the first point above regarding angles, I've been watching the tournament on SKY TV here in the UK. The commentators, with the exception of Claude Harmon III, are all professional or ex-professional golfers with major winners and Ryder Cuppers amongst them. And they all have referred repeatedly to angles and players going for one side of the fairway or another with their tee shot. Yes, finding the preferred side of the fairway when hitting your tee shot over 300 yards isn't a given, but that doesn't mean the players aren't trying to "place" their shots and that they aren't getting the benefit when they do.


As to the second point, I think it would be a more valid statement if he inserted "of one aspect of" before "their game and emotions". US Opens of old were very much about straight hitting. It seems to me that in recent years they have moved away from that model slightly and allowed a more rounded examination of a players game which I personally think is more entertaining to watch although as a traditionalist I can see why he doesn't like that. As an aside, I don't agree with the comment that LACC isn't a great US Open course. Again I think he is alluding to how US Opens used to be and in doing so is referring to the set up rather than the design. It occurs to me that they could readily bring in the rough and make it more penal if they wished. I think they are to be applauded for not doing so.


Niall     

[Erik J. Barzeski]

As to the first point above regarding angles, I've been watching the tournament on SKY TV here in the UK. The commentators, with the exception of Claude Harmon III, are all professional or ex-professional golfers with major winners and Ryder Cuppers amongst them. And they all have referred repeatedly to angles and players going for one side of the fairway or another with their tee shot. Yes, finding the preferred side of the fairway when hitting your tee shot over 300 yards isn't a given, but that doesn't mean the players aren't trying to "place" their shots and that they aren't getting the benefit when they do.

Two bits here:

1. If there's worse trouble to the right, of course they're going to shade toward the left side of the fairway. That may just be understanding their dispersion pattern and scoring, not necessarily chasing angles.

2. They may say "oh, the best angle here is from the left side" (on a hole that is maybe just rough of equal difficulty down both sides), but that may not be optimal for scoring given the dispersion patterns. They may have tried to hit it down the left side… or the right side… to their detriment.

[MCirba]

I'm old enough to recall those 25 yard wide slogfests quite well and personally I'd rather be watching Rory, Ricky, Scottie, et.al today than Jeff Maggert, Mike Donald, Scott Simpson, et.al., no slight intended.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I enjoy both set-ups. Watching Trevino hit his cut into every fairway and Nicklaus decide which club he could get in the short grass off the tee was fun. It is fun to watch Rory et al. bomb the ball 350 yards and have a short iron into a 540-yard par four. Both require a skill few of us have.


What I didn't enjoy were greens ringed with four-inch rough. Every recovery shot was the same. In current setups, shots are the greens require more imagination.

[Tom_Doak]

I enjoy both set-ups. Watching Trevino hit his cut into every fairway and Nicklaus decide which club he could get in the short grass off the tee was fun. It is fun to watch Rory et al. bomb the ball 350 yards and have a short iron into a 540-yard par four. Both required a skill few of us have.

What I didn't enjoy were greens ringed with four-inch rough. Every recovery shot was the same. In current setups, shots are the greens require more imagination.

Kopeka hit irons off the tee a lot at Oak Hill and presumably again this week, not much different than Nicklaus used to do.

I do agree with you that the softening of the rough around the greens is a fairly big component of the scoring differences between then and now.  Also, does anyone know the difference in sand save % between now and then?  The sand is definitely easier to play out of today, but I don't know how much difference it has made to scoring.  The champion isn't going to be in a lot of greenside bunkers anyway.[/size][size=78%]  [/size]

[Tom_Doak]

And since he brought up what the game should forget, how about the lie that there is a single golfer alive who has a dispersion cone so small that they could ever think of chasing “angles” which given the length players hit the ball are just a romantic attachment to a bygone era. And I never said LACC wasn’t a great golf course, it’s just not a great US Open golf course. Unless the USGA no longer cares about finding out which player has the most control of their game and emotions over the course of the week contending for a national championship.

As to the first point above regarding angles, I've been watching the tournament on SKY TV here in the UK. The commentators, with the exception of Claude Harmon III, are all professional or ex-professional golfers with major winners and Ryder Cuppers amongst them. And they all have referred repeatedly to angles and players going for one side of the fairway or another with their tee shot. Yes, finding the preferred side of the fairway when hitting your tee shot over 300 yards isn't a given, but that doesn't mean the players aren't trying to "place" their shots and that they aren't getting the benefit when they do.

Funnily enough, in the run-up to working on Memorial Park, I had a chance to discuss that exact topic with a bunch of players.  Brooks Kopeka was more of the opinion that the important strategic thinking at a major was about which side of the hole you needed to miss on for your second shot, more than the angle of the approach.  He thought he played better in majors because the week-to-week Tour courses really don't have the same sort of penalties around the green, and a lot of players were in the habit of dismissing the importance of missing below the hole, which costs them dearly at Oak Hill or Shinnecock.


All of the older guys [Nick Price, Mark O'Meara, Steve Elkington, Butch Harmon] told me that angles still matter, whether or not the players are playing for them, and that just like the players now are taught not to go away from their strengths in attacking the course, I should not go away from mine in trying to make it difficult for them.  That was really helpful to hear.  Now, it's possible that all of them [like us] have a "romantic attachment to a bygone era," but they very much liked watching guys miss in the wrong spots and then struggle from there, and it will happen again today.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Am I reading this correctly?

Angles don't matter? Please correct my reading comprehension, but that is an incredibly dumb comment- but really, the dumb comments are plentiful on NBC and Golf Channel these days - forget the word salad that is used to describe what occurred on full shots.


Azinger said yesterday that he wished architects would "get more tree hugger" - and I think I am quoting correctly. Lol, that is hilarious.


One of the commentators stated that "the tree is the only defense mechanism in golf" ,or something of the like.


It's incredible how quickly they join each other in group think regarding conditions when players are what? making birdies? But yet still being intellectually challenged and struggling for pars on drivable par 4's and sand wedge par 3's


Rickie had 221 into a par 4


290 yard par 3- that almost makes sense because of the architecture. 


did you see Rory hit 170 ball speed with a metal, and drive the ball on 6 into the front bunker, and grind a 4?

go play a stroke play event for 3-4 on a golf course that is TRUELY FiRM- which is VERY rarely the case in golf, and TELL ME ANGLES DON'T MATTER. That is an absolutely absurd comment- so absurd that you must be effing with me

Golf is literally about navigating lines of play- I mean really, and its funny that this is the conversation when the guy who wrote the book on "line of charm" is the architect of the course that is being examined.


This is a golf competition- some sites are better than others, some set ups are better than others and at the end of the day player go compete against the golf course, their fellow competitors and themselves. It's not that complicated. Traditional US Open? That sort of tradition has been tweaked for how many of the last several years? I wonder why?


Meanwhile, Augusta is buying real estate to lengthen holes, and every April, these folks put on their best suits and champion everything that goes on at ANGC- and refuse to accept the real issue at hand.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Angles don't matter? Please correct my reading comprehension, but that is an incredibly dumb comment- but really, the dumb comments are plentiful on NBC and Golf Channel these days.

You haven't read the many, many topics here discussing that same topic? Most of the time, particularly at the PGA Tour level, they do not.

go play a stroke play event for 3-4 on a golf course that is TRUELY FiRM- which is VERY rarely the case in golf, and TELL ME ANGLES DON'T MATTER. That is an absolutely absurd comment- so absurd that you must be effing with me

That's one of the reasons why they don't matter: they rarely play "TRUELY [sic] FIRM" courses.

[M. Shea Sweeney]

Angles don't matter? Please correct my reading comprehension, but that is an incredibly dumb comment- but really, the dumb comments are plentiful on NBC and Golf Channel these days.

You haven't read the many, many topics here discussing that same topic? Most of the time, particularly at the PGA Tour level, they do not.

go play a stroke play event for 3-4 on a golf course that is TRUELY FiRM- which is VERY rarely the case in golf, and TELL ME ANGLES DON'T MATTER. That is an absolutely absurd comment- so absurd that you must be effing with me

That's one of the reasons why they don't matter: they rarely play "TRUELY [sic] FIRM" courses.

Make the angles matter with firmness - and challenge the player accordingly.

[Pete_Pittock]

Somewhere, sometime an acorn from an oak tree next to a golf course fairway will fall and sprout as 'A Confidential Guide to Golf Commentators".  Who will make the gourmet section?


How much wider are these fairways than at another sidehill spectacle US Open course such as Olympic CC?

[jeffwarne]

So according to Brandel, the dispersion is too great for it to make sense for the the elite players in the game to seek an angle on a 56 yard fairway...


BUT, yet somehow the best test to identify the elite is to "stare down a (24 yard) ribbon of fairway" and see who can execute...
I'd guess if you can consistently hit a 24 yard fairway, you can hit the side of a 56 yard fairway you're aiming for-pretty simple math.


Aren't they the same skill? with one offering options of thought, experience, course knowledge,line, angle(maybe even in the rough) and distance, and the other merely offering options of club selection.


In the past there was always someone who was having a great driving week and was high on the leaderboard.
Not always the best player, but one having a great driving week, or long enough to manage long irons and/or stingers around.
Now we see the best consistently in contention because they are allowed to display their other skills more often.


I like the variety of this year-I've liked other setups as well.


I might quibble with the silly 6 inch crap between the bunkers and the green, but on balance it's nice to see variety-especially in hole lengths.

[Tim Gavrich]

The notion of "chasing angles" has always been a perversion of the reality of course management and strategic golf, and the argument in favor of such. It relies on conjuring and exploiting some absurd image of hopelessly nerdy architecture geeks aiming for 5-yard wide slivers of fairway in antiquated obedience of some creed laid down by Tom Simpson or George Thomas a century ago.


The reality is that angles do matter, but the way in which they matter is more of a spectrum than a stark binary. If a player is aiming anywhere but directly down the middle of a fairway or green, then angles do matter.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The reality is that angles do matter, but the way in which they matter is more of a spectrum than a stark binary. If a player is aiming anywhere but directly down the middle of a fairway or green, then angles do matter.

Lake right so player aims left isn't a function of "angles matter." It's a function of "penalties matter."

We've done this a hundred times here on GCA, though, so…

[Mark Pearce]

Somebody took Tom's OP and put it on Twitter.  That's where I first saw it.  That is, surely, an abuse of this discussion group.

[Steve Lapper]

I actually care little about Tom’s original point or Brandel’s response (which is just the same argument on either side we’ve heard 1,000 times).


I’m much more disappointed that people think it’s reasonable to snaffle a comment Tom made on here and send it on to Chamblee to elicit an argument.




Somebody took Tom's OP and put it on Twitter.  That's where I first saw it.  That is, surely, an abuse of this discussion group.


Mark Pearce

I call major BS on both of these remarks. Yes, several people brought Tom's comments to Brandel's attention. As Tom himself said: "there are lots of lurkers out there" FWIW, Brandel is NOT one of them.


GCA.com's Discussion Group is a publicly-disseminated forum, available to anyone who clicks into this site. Both Tom and Brandel are smart, strong-minded, articulate public advocates of their own opinions. One has a media megaphone and active Twitter account, the other this website and various publications. Each do so by their own choice.


I was asked by Brandel to post a response and did just that. If necessary, I'd do it all over again. That's called setting the stage for honest debate and the airing of different opinions. That's constructive and healthy discourse. Both Ally & Mark seem to suggest that isn't called for on GCA.com. As a multi-decade member of this site......that's pure hogwash.


 Other than clearing the waters of unnecessarily petty and silly ad-hominem style retorts, I find merit in parts of both their missives. I don't want to insert myself further, yet I have to call out those naysayers who believe the integrity of this website is compromised by promoting any kind of golf and architectural dialogue, no matter how asymmetric it may seem. I think Ran and Ben would wholeheartedly agree.

[Charlie Goerges]

Yes, this site is part of the public internet. Anything we say can be used against us in the court of public opinion.

[Niall C]

Steve

We are all responsible for our own posts however those posts can be misinterpreted if reported out of context. I've no idea if that is the case here as I can't recall reading the thread in question, and neither do I know how Tom's comments were passed on. However the points the same.


Niall

[Mark Pearce]

I actually care little about Tom’s original point or Brandel’s response (which is just the same argument on either side we’ve heard 1,000 times).


I’m much more disappointed that people think it’s reasonable to snaffle a comment Tom made on here and send it on to Chamblee to elicit an argument.




Somebody took Tom's OP and put it on Twitter.  That's where I first saw it.  That is, surely, an abuse of this discussion group.


Mark Pearce

I call major BS on both of these remarks. Yes, several people brought Tom's comments to Brandel's attention. As Tom himself said: "there are lots of lurkers out there" FWIW, Brandel is NOT one of them.


GCA.com's Discussion Group is a publicly-disseminated forum, available to anyone who clicks into this site. Both Tom and Brandel are smart, strong-minded, articulate public advocates of their own opinions. One has a media megaphone and active Twitter account, the other this website and various publications. Each do so by their own choice.


I was asked by Brandel to post a response and did just that. If necessary, I'd do it all over again. That's called setting the stage for honest debate and the airing of different opinions. That's constructive and healthy discourse. Both Ally & Mark seem to suggest that isn't called for on GCA.com. As a multi-decade member of this site......that's pure hogwash.


 Other than clearing the waters of unnecessarily petty and silly ad-hominem style retorts, I find merit in parts of both their missives. I don't want to insert myself further, yet I have to call out those naysayers who believe the integrity of this website is compromised by promoting any kind of golf and architectural dialogue, no matter how asymmetric it may seem. I think Ran and Ben would wholeheartedly agree.

Are you calling me a liar?  I repeat, the first time I saw Tom's post was on Twitter, copied and pasted as an image.  What possible reason do you have to not believe that?

[Charlie Goerges]

Are you calling me a liar?  I repeat, the first time I saw Tom's post was on Twitter, copied and pasted as an image.  What possible reason do you have to not believe that?

I think he's actually taking exception with the idea that it's an abuse of the discussion group. Point being that anyone can see what we post here and repost it elsewhere.

[Mark Pearce]

Are you calling me a liar?  I repeat, the first time I saw Tom's post was on Twitter, copied and pasted as an image.  What possible reason do you have to not believe that?

I think he's actually taking exception with the idea that it's an abuse of the discussion group. Point being that anyone can see what we post here and repost it elsewhere.

If that's right, he could have been significantly clearer.


There is a difference (and a significant one) between someone looking at this site and its content, or referring someone to it, and taking a screen shot and posting it on Twitter to cause controversy.  Not least because that deprives a response in a thread of any context.  The Twitter post I saw was, very clearly, shit stirring (I hope that expression translates).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()