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.


DT

Carnoustie set up looks PERFECT
« on: July 15, 1999, 08:00:00 PM »
What is everyone complaining about? The world's best need to confront a course like this every so often.A man with uncommon determination will raise the Claret Jug high come Sunday afternoon. It will not be a fluke winner but someone with complete confidence in themselves and their game plan. Based on the player's comments after two days, the man who is bitching less and sticking to game plan is Tiger Woods. Time will prove him the winner.

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Carnoustie set up looks PERFECT
« Reply #1 on: July 16, 1999, 08:00:00 PM »
Surely PERFECT is a bit strong. If they need to rely on the use of fertilizer a few yards off the fairway, they are clearly more interested in protecting their beloved courses's reputation than identifying the better player. What happened to Norman three yards off the 17th fairway when there is a burn down the other side of the fairway is purely penal. There is no strategic merit in the course set up whatsoever. The strategy is the same on every shot - hit the shortest club you can get away with and keep it straight. Not as scintillating stuff really as the Open deserves.

JohnV

Carnoustie set up looks PERFECT
« Reply #2 on: July 16, 1999, 08:00:00 PM »
Well, Greg learned his lesson and hit it in the burn today.  Also, hasn't Mr. Vande Velde been hitting more woods than anyone?  Maybe he knows something others don't.  As Sam Snead said, I'd rather have a 9 iron from the rough than an 5 iron from the fairway.  And in this case, they probably still are in the rough after hitting an iron off the tee.I think it is a shame that the fairways were narrowed.  I think you could have had the tough rough, but kept the fairways around their usual width and made it a lot more interesting.If players are hitting 6 irons 250 yards on the 15th hole, why not pull a driver, it might even be possible to drive the green.  As far as Tiger can fly it, he could carry the corner of the dogleg and get it bouncing down there towards the green and who knows...

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Carnoustie set up looks PERFECT
« Reply #3 on: July 17, 1999, 08:00:00 PM »
I agree with John V. - Tiger is leaving too much in the bag. He is slowly bleeding to death. With only one double bogey in 54 holes, I would have thought he was on track. The problem? He is laying so far back that his conservative approach has led to few birdies.He needs to play to his strength. The best example is the Open at Muirfield when Nicklaus mounted a furious charge in the 4th round once he became aggressive. It was too late for Nicklaus then as Trevenio rode some good fortune home.It may be too late for the Tiger this year too.

John

Carnoustie set up looks PERFECT
« Reply #4 on: July 17, 1999, 08:00:00 PM »
Narrow fairways and punishing rough can be acceptable on shortish, inland courses (e.g., Merion) but long, wind-swept courses have no business being set up that way.  In general, the longer a course and the more exposed it is to wind, the wider the fairways should be -- Carnoustie is the other way round!  That is why the Ocean course at Kiawah and Whistling Straits work so well -- the extra wide fairways make them playable in gales.  

Ran Morrissett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Carnoustie set up looks PERFECT
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 1999, 08:00:00 PM »
DT:Are you happy with the outcome of the Open? Did the set up produce a great champion? Perhaps Paul Lawrie will go on and be another Tom Watson, and we were lucky to see his first big step. However, it looks to me that the crummy set up produced a near win for a scrambler who was going to chip and putt his way to the title. Instead it produced a champion that did not produce one single shot during regulation that I can remember.Carnoustie the course deserved better - the R&A blew that one.

Tom T.

Carnoustie set up looks PERFECT
« Reply #6 on: July 28, 1999, 08:00:00 PM »
Too often, the powers to be for the clubs or associations conducting major championships have no earthly clue how to set up the courses they've selected.  It used to be that courses were selected only for their quality. What has evolved over the last decade or so is that course quality is secondary to club facilities: parking, corporate tent space, gallery room, practice range, clubhouse size, access to highways, etc.  It remains though, that the course should be the stage on which these events are played. Their design quality should never be modified in the interest of unqualified people who cannot relate to ever hitting shots that expert players are able to hit.  The tendancy seems to be that adminitrators or committeemen overestimate the abilities of these expert players by setting up courses with unfair hole settings (18th at Olympia Fields on Friday of 1997 Senior Open or 18th at Olympic Club on Friday of 1998 Open), extremely narrow fairways with tall, thick rough (Carnoustie this year or Winged Foot during 1974 Open) or fairways that dogleg too sharply and against the lay of the land (Olmpic's 17th in 1987 Open and 4th, 5th and 9th in 1998). Clubs and associations that conduct the majors are right in one respect: their philosophy that if they miss and their setup is wrong, it errs on the difficult or unfair side.  The PGA Tour would never be comfortable erring on the difficult side--Finchem gets paid by the players and his raises are somewhat tied into the overall happiness of his members.  Most believe that fans want to see eagles and birdies more than just good shots that result in the lowest scores relative to everyone else--perhaps the best reason why the Players Championship can never be a major championship--the players control everything about the event. So when scores are extremely high due to the setup of the course is it unfair?  Yes. There is a middle ground albeit hard to attain with those who are in charge.