Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: JSlonis on July 23, 2007, 11:35:50 AM
-
Over the past couple of years, Geoff Ogilvy has quickly become my one of my favorite tour players. More so for his excellent commentary on todays game and the current state of course architecture than for his equally excellent play.
Posted below is his article about Carnoustie and using rough in the current major setups. He didn't make the cut at the Open this year, but he should get a Claret Jug for commentary. ;D
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rough justice
GEOFF OGILVY
IF YOU are like most golfers I meet, you probably think that courses need to be as difficult as possible in order to challenge the very best players. And you probably think that part of that difficulty has to come from narrow fairways and thick rough, which is what we had here at Carnoustie back in 1999.
Well, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Rough is golf's most boring hazard and too much of it on any course can only lead to less interesting play. Rough misses the point of golf.
Think of it this way. On the Old Course at St Andrews the fairways are the widest in the world. You stand on the tee knowing you are not going to miss the fairway. So you knock the ball down there anywhere.
And, after doing that a few times, you suddenly realise you are not making birdies. So then you start to wonder: "Where do I need to be to make a birdie?"
Invariably, the pin position is the key to answering that question.
If the hole is cut on the right side of the green, the ideal approach needs to come from the left side of the fairway. Then, if you move the pin to the other side of the green, suddenly that ideal spot is 60 yards from where it was. To me, that's a lot more interesting than standing on a tee, looking down a narrow fairway and having any decision about where to go already made for me.
Sadly, that is exactly what happened here eight years ago. The par-5 sixth hole was particularly bad. Which was tragic, given how good a hole it is. Off the tee you have three obvious options. You can try to drive between the fairway bunkers and the fence on the left. You can hit up the right side. Or you can play short of the sand.
But the only option we had in 1999 was to lay-up short of the bunkers. The penalty for trying something more daring and missing far outweighed any reward. So everyone laid up, which left a long iron second shot into what was hardly more than a ten-yard gap. There's a little burn up there, too, one that people have discovered for the first time this year. Last time it was 20 yards into the rough! Now it's in play and you have to think about it when the hole plays into the wind. Thinking - what a concept eh?
Anyway, this year, we can lay-up to different points on the hole. We can lay back or try to hit close to the green, depending on the pin position. But the point is, we have choices.
The 15th hole was horrific last time, too. The fairway was so narrow and it slopes severely left to right. You can't have a 15-yard wide, sloping fairway with a strong crosswind blowing and the rough that thick. When we missed - and we all missed - we were all chipping out sideways.
It's commonsense really. Golf has to be more interesting if we can stand on tees and decide for ourselves what club to hit and where to hit it.
Take the fourth hole here at Carnoustie. In the first round last Thursday, the pin was tucked away behind the bunker on the left side of the green. So the ideal spot for the drive was actually ten yards or so into the rough on the right. Which was where I chose to hit. I was prepared to accept a less-good lie in order to create a better angle for myself. In the end, I pushed my drive a bit and ended up on the 15th fairway, which gave me an even better line in. But the fun part of the whole process was the standing on the tee and working it out.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not anti-rough necessarily. Rough like we have here this week gives the talented player a chance to recover.
Which is great and as it should be. The recovery shot might be the most exciting thing to watch at this level. But it disappears completely when the set up is overly penal. When that is the case, there is no point in being good at recovery shots; you'll never get to try one.
The obsession among the various tours around the world seems to be the score we shoot relative to par. We need to forget about par. Would a Wimbledon final be better if the net was higher? Or would the British Grand Prix be more exciting if you narrowed the track and everyone has to drive slower? I don't think so.
Yet again, I think of St Andrews. Two years ago we played the Open there and something like 18 under par won. Did anyone think that demeaned the golf course? I don't think so. The scores we shoot have no relevance to the quality of a golf course.
Look also at the 69 Tiger Woods shot in the third round of the US Open at what was almost a rough-covered Oakmont last month. We had the best golfer in the world - one of the two best ever - playing close to his best and he could manage only one under par? All that proves is that there is something wrong with the course.
Happily, none of the above has been the case here at Carnoustie, even if I did miss the cut. Take a close look at the way this great links has been set up this week.
This is the way your own course should be presented for the club championship. The rough is an annoyance but not the end of the world.
You have to hit two good shots on any hole to make a birdie. The greens are running at a speed where you can put the pin in almost any spot on almost every green. It has been a fascinating test.
Web links
Open website
http://www.opengolf.com
Carnoustie website
http://www.carnoustie.co.uk
-
Perhaps in 20-30 years we will have a volume to place in our libraries authoured by this man that we will treasure. Very good prose. His stock just continues to climb with me.
-
David, no doubt such a compendium of essays will be gathered and put in a book.
Geoff O., and Geoff S., seem to be very simpatico in their views.
It would be neat if O joined Hanse's design team as the tour player consultant. That is a marriage of ideas that might work. Not to say he couldn't be compatible with several other archies we all know of a similar mind... ;) ;D 8)
-
It would be neat if O joined Hanse's design team as the tour player consultant. That is a marriage of ideas that might work.
That would actually be an excellent idea.
-
Sounds like GCA groupthink to me. ;)
-
JSlonis -
Thanks for posting this article. Can you tell me where I can find it on the web? Thanks.
DT
-
Two thoughts:
I think Ogilvy is all wet when he suggests Oakmont's set-up was improper ("...there is something wrong with the course...") because Tiger could only extract a 69 out of his 17/18 GIR round on Saturday. Tiger putted, by his standards, very poorly that day, and admitted so afterward. And I'd argue it wasn't the greens or pin placements; other folks had decent rounds that day and putted much better, and Sat. was Tiger's worst putting round.
Also, I'd be curious if Ogilvy's thoughts on rough are at all related to his accuracy off the tee. I don't have his driving stats (season or either Open) in front of me, but I wonder if this is a philosophy motivated by his (frequent?) encounters with the rough because of how he (wildly?) drives the ball.
-
Look also at the 69 Tiger Woods shot in the third round of the US Open at what was almost a rough-covered Oakmont last month. We had the best golfer in the world - one of the two best ever - playing close to his best and he could manage only one under par? All that proves is that there is something wrong with the course.
Many good points, but I disagree with that one. Tiger's playing well and shooting 1-under proves absolutely nothing.
I thought it was a fine and interesting U.S. Open, on what seems to be a great, great golf course.
Young Mr. Ogilvy needs to take his own advice to the various Tours: Don't pay so much attention to Par.
-
JSlonis -
Thanks for posting this article. Can you tell me where I can find it on the web? Thanks.
DT
Here is the direct link:
http://sport.scotsman.com/golf.cfm?id=1142132007
As for this comment...
"Look also at the 69 Tiger Woods shot in the third round of the US Open at what was almost a rough-covered Oakmont last month. We had the best golfer in the world - one of the two best ever - playing close to his best and he could manage only one under par? All that proves is that there is something wrong with the course."
I'd have to agree with Phil and Dan. I wouldn't say there is something wrong with Oakmont, just that the greens are among the hardest in the world. Tiger may have hit 17 greens that 3rd round, but he probably didn't have many "green light" putts. If I recall correctly, he had a lot of putts with quite a bit of break, the large majority of which he had to putt very defensively.
Phil,
Ogilvy ranks 118th in driving accuracy. Interestingly, this ranks him ahead of players such as Woods, Els, Mickelson, Harrington, Garcia, Scott, Stenson and Goosen. Seems as though all of the world's "best" players can't keep the ball in play anymore. Out of the top ranked guys, only Furyk hits in play more often. :P
-
Phil,
Ogilvy ranks 118th in driving accuracy. Interestingly, this ranks him ahead of players such as Woods, Els, Mickelson, Harrington, Garcia, Scott, Stenson and Goosen. Seems as though all of the world's "best" players can't keep the ball in play anymore. Out of the top ranked guys, only Furyk hits in play more often. :P
This not only speaks, it screams volumes.
-
Johnson won the Masters this year largely on the strength of his accuracy off the tee. He far and away led the contenders at Augusta this year in fairway accuracy.
I think the top players cited indicates the nature of the game today, at most courses. Hit it far, gouge it out when in trouble, depend on putting and short games to do well. The majors (including Augusta this year, which was also partly attributable to weather) require it seems a more disciplined approach to hitting fairways.
-
Ogilvy ranks 118th in driving accuracy. Interestingly, this ranks him ahead of players such as Woods, Els, Mickelson, Harrington, Garcia, Scott, Stenson and Goosen. Seems as though all of the world's "best" players can't keep the ball in play anymore. Out of the top ranked guys, only Furyk hits in play more often. :P
Can't keep it in play or don't prioritise keeping it on the fairway?
-
I'd be careful to categorize Ogilvy as a poor driver of the golf ball. PGA Tour statistics can be quite misleading. Scenerios such as balls rolling into first cut's being in fine shape but officially being "fairway's missed" as well as players hitting it to 12 feet from the hole but being 1 inch on the fringe, giving them a missed green....when the guy 50 feet away gets credited for the GIR...who has the better birdie chance? Regardless, I have heard from a friend on the PGA Tour that Ogilivy was the most impressive driver of the golf ball he has played with and it stems from his ball flight, absolutely dead straight. He has also decided to play it, and as holes dogleg slightly in the landing zone, shots such as his tend to run out into the first cut more than most. Tiger has said himself that the only statistic that means anything is the scoring average, all the others can be mis interpreted pretty badly.
It is nice to hear a PGA Tour player speak on a subject and sound like he has an opinion that he has thought through, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. Most of these robots only like course set ups if they win, and in this case, a missed cut didn't change his opinion.
-
I'd be careful to categorize Ogilvy as a poor driver of the golf ball. PGA Tour statistics can be quite misleading.
There is a certain irony in Driving statistics being quoted when in the above article Ogilvy stated he aimed 15 yards into the rough on a particular hole.
-
Ogilvy ranks 118th in driving accuracy. Interestingly, this ranks him ahead of players such as Woods, Els, Mickelson, Harrington, Garcia, Scott, Stenson and Goosen. Seems as though all of the world's "best" players can't keep the ball in play anymore. Out of the top ranked guys, only Furyk hits in play more often. :P
Can't keep it in play or don't prioritise keeping it on the fairway?
I view "keeping the ball in play" as the ability to hit the "fairway". The tour players I listed above would probably view it as keeping the ball between the treelines as far down the hole as possible. It's a different game out there. Obviously, given the day to day setups and the courses that the Tour plays, hitting the ball in the fairway is no longer a necessity to shoot low scores. If the tour played a steady diet of more classic courses like you find here in the Northeast, I think you'd see those stats change a bit.
If the "bomb & gauge" game is the way to make more money and win a few events, then why should these guys change? They have the ability to hit the ball extremely well, and I have to believe they could hit it straighter with today's Driver and golf ball. They don't because they don't have to to succeed. I am constantly surprised by the lack of consistent play with the driver from the top players. It has never been easier to hit the ball straighter off the tee in the history of the game, yet they fail to do so. There must be a reason for it. I think the reason is: Given the courses and setups they play, outside of the Majors, swinging for the fences and sorting it out from there works. This is the way to make $$$ on Tour. Bomb it, chase it, wedge it, and putt great.
-
I'd be careful to categorize Ogilvy as a poor driver of the golf ball. PGA Tour statistics can be quite misleading.
There is a certain irony in Driving statistics being quoted when in the above article Ogilvy stated he aimed 15 yards into the rough on a particular hole.
Maybe Ogilvy would be right up there with Furyk if he wasn't always looking for options and the best angle into greens. ;)
-
If the "bomb & gauge" game is the way to make more money and win a few events, then why should these guys change? They have the ability to hit the ball extremely well, and I have to believe they could hit it straighter with today's Driver and golf ball. They don't because they don't have to to succeed. I am constantly surprised by the lack of consistent play with the driver from the top players. It has never been easier to hit the ball straighter off the tee in the history of the game, yet they fail to do so. There must be a reason for it. I think the reason is: Given the courses and setups they play, outside of the Majors, swinging for the fences and sorting it out from there works. This is the way to make $$$ on Tour. Bomb it, chase it, wedge it, and putt great.
I agree with that. There will always be a payoff between distance and accuracy. At the moment players are prioritising distance. Since it is a priority I don't think that it is entirely fair to say "the world's "best" players can't keep the ball in play anymore".
-
If the "bomb & gauge" game is the way to make more money and win a few events, then why should these guys change? They have the ability to hit the ball extremely well, and I have to believe they could hit it straighter with today's Driver and golf ball. They don't because they don't have to to succeed. I am constantly surprised by the lack of consistent play with the driver from the top players. It has never been easier to hit the ball straighter off the tee in the history of the game, yet they fail to do so. There must be a reason for it. I think the reason is: Given the courses and setups they play, outside of the Majors, swinging for the fences and sorting it out from there works. This is the way to make $$$ on Tour. Bomb it, chase it, wedge it, and putt great.
I agree with that. There will always be a payoff between distance and accuracy. At the moment players are prioritising distance. Since it is a priority I don't think that it is entirely fair to say "the world's "best" players can't keep the ball in play anymore".
David,
I think it is somewhat fair. When they are given a course that demands accuracy, such as Oakmont this year, the Fairways Hit % is still quite low. Out of the top finishers in the US Open, Furyk lead with 68% of fairways hit. The majority of the others were below 55%, with numerous high ranked players missing the cut all together.
-
David,
I think it is somewhat fair. When they are given a course that demands accuracy, such as Oakmont this year, the Fairways Hit % is still quite low. Out of the top finishers in the US Open, Furyk lead with 68% of fairways hit. The majority of the others were below 55%, with numerous high ranked players missing the cut all together.
You, being a far better golfer than me, would have a far better idea, but I was sort of thinking along the lines of the way players develop their swings - that these players have developed these swings over a long period of time to suit a style of play. I don't think it is possible for these players to change their swing for one week for the US Open but I think if you told Tiger that in 2009 that driving accuracy would be the key to winning every major, he could build a swing to suit this.
-
Wonderful.
-
David, no doubt such a compendium of essays will be gathered and put in a book.
Geoff O., and Geoff S., seem to be very simpatico in their views.
It would be neat if O joined Hanse's design team as the tour player consultant. That is a marriage of ideas that might work. Not to say he couldn't be compatible with several other archies we all know of a similar mind... ;) ;D 8)
Hmmm, Geoff O. might not like the rough he'd find at Crail Craigshead if he thought Oakmont's rough was excessive...
I liked his article, other than the end where he said Tiger's 69 on US Open Saturday indicated a problem with the course. If he would have looked at the number of fairways and greens Tiger hit that day he'd know the rough had zero to do with Tiger's failure to go low!
Regardless of the reason or statistical validity of Ogilvy's ranking so low in fairways hit, it makes me think his belief that rough should be de-emphasized could a bit self serving. Ask Fred Funk and he might have some different thoughts about the role of rough and how much accuracy with the driver should be rewarded. If my livelihood was at stake I'd insist the best courses were 8000 yards long with 200 yard wide flat fairways and wildly contoured greens surrounded by sand traps. You know, gotta play to your strengths!
JSlonis' comment about the pros just trying to "hit between the treelines" made me laugh, because I've ALWAYS played that way, from long before bomb and gouge was the fashion. Not because I'm ahead of the curve, but because I've always been wild off the tee and while being in the rough often leaves a more difficult shot than being in the fairway, it is always much easier than when you are smack dab behind a tree! ;)
-
Ask Ogilvy and he'll tell you that his favourite course in the world is the Old Course, and links golf is his favourite. This is despite his high ball-flight being less suited to this style of golf.
And he missed the cut at Carnoustie, yet praises the setup.
His opinions have nothing to do with the way he plays the game.
-
Well said, Chris.
-
A big part of what I do for a living is consult with people on how to measure things that can't be directly observed (using surveys or interviews or attaching little recorders to monitor movement). As a measurement geek, the reification of "Fairways Hit" is the one thing in this whole distance, technology, bomb-and-gouge Chicken Little panic that most drives me around the bend.
I see pronouncements from the USGA claiming that "Driving Accuracy" no longer receives appropriate emphasis in the elite game. But then how do they back up that rather far-reaching conclusion? By reporting a correlation between percentage of "Fairways Hit" and scoring or money winnings. That's an idiotic measure that any half-wit ought to be able to see for what it is. It's a convenient thing to have somebody mark down on a clipboard, nobody seriously thinks that a ball four inches off the "fairway" into a 3/4" first cut of fescue has the same implication for scoring as a ball four inches off the "fairway" in a 2-1/2" Bermuda cut. Yet the only measure they bother to record is a "No" in the stupid "Fairway Hit?" box.
Here's a real deep insight for you. Players know the difference between the first cut and the deep rough. They know the difference between a potential lost ball and a potential easy shot out of an inch of rough. And they take that difference into account. They also take into account the likelihood of a ball ending up in deep rough with a lob wedge in hand and a good angle to the hole versus lesser rough with a mid-iron and no green to work with.
Anyone who mentions a yes-or-no stat for "hitting the fairway" in a discussion of how technology shapes the game is bullshitting. They either don't know what they're talking about or they're trying to convince you of something without doing the homework to make a valid case for their point of view. Or they're stupid but in my experience much apparent stupidity is really bullshit.
-
Brent:
Good points. This may veer this thread off to points unrelated, but, curious, do you think there are any stats in golf (ones kept, or perhaps ones not) that have any substantial meaning as an indicator of how someone is playing? I'm looking for something beyond scoring average and the money list, which are sort of obvious.
-
Phil,
On the US PGA Tour they have the ShotLink data which is excellent. For approach shots and putting in particular they get pretty close to the ideal IMO. Admittedly, I believe they only have the distance from which an approach shot is hit (or maybe with some rudimentary fairway/rough/bunker categorization of lie) but other than that limitation I think you can answer most any question.
Things like a player's average and median distance from the hole from any given distance is a pretty solid measure, especially inside of 175 yards or so where they're presumably aiming pretty nearly at the hole on average, is a great measure of accuracy of irons and wedges. And knowing the length of putts to the inch is great not only for putting analysis but also for decomposing an "up and down" stat into its components of "how close" and "how long a putt".
And of course ShotLink gives actual driving distances (carry plus roll) on every hole instead of the old two-hole-per-round stuff. So there's a lot of interesting analysis possible with the ShotLink data. But the two-hole-per-round distances along with GIR and Putts/GIR and "Scrambling" are pretty lame (of those GIR is the most valid IMO).
-
Phil, most of the things I've read felt the strongest indicator stat-wise of how well someone is playing is Greens in Regulation.
But the two-hole-per-round distances along with GIR and Putts/GIR and "Scrambling" are pretty lame (of those GIR is the most valid IMO).
D'oh - I think I just got seconded and corrected both in the same sentence.
-
Brent:
Thanks -- I knew about the shot-link data, but just haven't had the time to peruse it carefully.
One stat I'd be curious to dig into is what I might call "lag putting" -- the ability to consistently two-putt from a long distance, e.g., 35-40+ feet. I've always thought lag putting is a somewhat underrated skill, and one not discussed frequently. (People cite Faxon, for instance, as a great putter, because he seems to make lots of 8-10 footers. You don't often hear folks discuss golfers who rarely three-putt from 45-feet away, a skill it seems is weighed more heavily in majors, with presumably tough greens and tough pins to shoot at.)
-
George,
GIR is a perfectly cromulent stat in that it correlates well with scoring and does a good job of measuring what it claims to measure. As yes/no stats go it's a fine one. The only real shortcoming is the existence of that yes/no line, IMO especially as pertains to the "no" side covering everything from requiring a putt from inches into the fringe to requiring a heroic recovery shot. But sometimes you want a simple, dichotomous summary measure and GIR is both obvious and correct.
Phil,
In your example of lag putting, the ShotLink style data is good both for comparing players and for the players themselves to use. Let's say Sergio Garcia believes he's three-putting too often and so he thinks it must be because he misses too many 4-footers. He could look at the ShotLink putting data and compare the distribution of his lag putts from, say, 40-60 feet to that of the rest of the Tour. He might find that he actually lags only half as many long putts to inside 4 feet as the guys who don't three-putt and find out that he needs to work on lagging, not on making 100 short ones in a row.
Or something like that. Detailed measurement is a great thing. Especially in the case of the PGA Tour who has more money than God and gets their measurement labor for free from volunteers in any case.
-
You get enough data and the patterns and trends will appear. The measurement "errors", such as "what defines a fairway hit" will average out.
-
Two thoughts:
I think Ogilvy is all wet when he suggests Oakmont's set-up was improper ("...there is something wrong with the course...") because Tiger could only extract a 69 out of his 17/18 GIR round on Saturday. Tiger putted, by his standards, very poorly that day, and admitted so afterward. And I'd argue it wasn't the greens or pin placements; other folks had decent rounds that day and putted much better, and Sat. was Tiger's worst putting round.
...
Phil,
I suspect you got this wrong! Geoff was talking about TOC width as being more of the ideal. Now suppose Oakmont had TOC width. Don't you suppose Tiger playing at the top of his game could have found places to hit it that would have allowed him to knock it stiff and make the birdies inevitable?
-
Brent:
Thanks -- I knew about the shot-link data, but just haven't had the time to peruse it carefully.
One stat I'd be curious to dig into is what I might call "lag putting" -- the ability to consistently two-putt from a long distance, e.g., 35-40+ feet. I've always thought lag putting is a somewhat underrated skill, and one not discussed frequently. (People cite Faxon, for instance, as a great putter, because he seems to make lots of 8-10 footers. You don't often hear folks discuss golfers who rarely three-putt from 45-feet away, a skill it seems is weighed more heavily in majors, with presumably tough greens and tough pins to shoot at.)
Well, if you make a lot of 8 to 10 footers, you can hit some pretty crappy first putts and still not to have to worry about three putting...
I do think the tour keeps some stats for three putts, but again Shotlink would be the place to look to figure out how long those putts are since a guy who ends up with a lot of three putts because he's leaving himself a bunch of 60 footers may be a better putter than a guy who has slightly fewer three putts but is doing those from 40 feet.
But even if you get that data, then you have to get into how difficult the putt is. A putt with a big break, or multiple breaks, is tougher than one that's flat. A slick downhiller you just breath on to get started is tougher than one that's flat or uphill.
The same is true for hitting "fairways" and "rough", beyond just whether you are in the first cut or not. If you are in the fairway, do you have a nice flat lie or is it a hanging lie? Is the ball well above or below your feet, or in a divot? If you are in the rough, is the ball sitting up well or not? Are you hitting with or against the grain? Are there trees in the way, and if so, what type(s) of shots do they permit?
I think you could drive yourself crazy trying to do a statically sound job of analyzing the tour. Even baseball, which has stats up the wazoo, realizes that sometimes you can go too far and doesn't break down stats in terms of whether for example a fielding error was due to the sun getting in a player's eyes versus a true error that's totally the player's fault with no outside cause.
-
Doug:
You're correct, of course, about putting too much emphasis on stats, and the parallel to baseball is a good one -- two sports in which the "arena" (the golf course, ballpark particulars) directly impacts statistics (the short left-field porch at Yankee Stadium and Ruth, pitcher's ballparks and ERAs, others...)
I just used the example of lag putting because it's a subject rarely talked about, it seems, in golf conversations (telecasts, books, whatnot), yet great putters like Crenshaw view speed way more than line as the most important factor in putting. Tiger, in detailing putting woes, almost always talks about getting his speed correct. It seems to follow that players who are good lag putters are pretty good about getting speed correct if not the line.
-
Two thoughts:
I think Ogilvy is all wet when he suggests Oakmont's set-up was improper ("...there is something wrong with the course...") because Tiger could only extract a 69 out of his 17/18 GIR round on Saturday. Tiger putted, by his standards, very poorly that day, and admitted so afterward. And I'd argue it wasn't the greens or pin placements; other folks had decent rounds that day and putted much better, and Sat. was Tiger's worst putting round.
...
Phil,
I suspect you got this wrong! Geoff was talking about TOC width as being more of the ideal. Now suppose Oakmont had TOC width. Don't you suppose Tiger playing at the top of his game could have found places to hit it that would have allowed him to knock it stiff and make the birdies inevitable?
Garland:
I think that's something of an apples-to-oranges argument. TOC's entire strategy is based around width providing options, risks and rewards -- typically the easier approach shot to a green at TOC comes from taking a bolder and riskier line off the tee (16 being a great example, with the best approach coming from a risky drive between the Principal's Nose and OB right). Oakmont strikes me as perhaps the ultimate parkland-style, penal course -- requiring a certain exactitude on shotmaking (tee shots, approaches, and putting) that, failing to do so, results in at least a one-stroke loss. Oakmont's entire strategy, it seems, is NOT to provide many options off the tee (with the exception of a few short par 4s, where the USGA moved some tees up to provide some opportunity for driving the green). Rather, Oakmont fairly loudly says: Put it in the fairway. If you have to resort to an iron off the tee, and that leaves you with a longer approach (and thus less chance of getting it to the pin), so be it -- that's what you have to accept to avoid the stiff penalty of being off the fairway. I like both courses, and the challenge they provide golfers, but they are clearly different courses.
My sense of how Tiger has come to dominate TOC is that he does so largely on the basis of power and his wonderful short game -- it has several drivable par 4s and reachable par 5s, and he attacks those holes to get his birdies (driving OVER the green at 12 downwind, and then chipping back -- a much easier chip than attacking that hole from the front of the green). He also manages his game to avoid the bunkers, again, a testamant to his skills.
-
Phil,
I was thinking about how Oakmont has several greens canted either right or left. Instead of coming at them from straight on as required by the narrow fairways, Tiger could have gone way left or right to hit into the slope of the green and have more control over where the ball comes to rest.
-
Garland,
I'm not sure there is anything that's way left or way right at Oakmont, at least under a USGA set-up, and certainly nothing similar to the way left/right approaches that are a clear part of TOC's strategy. Fownes seemed to have built Oakmont with penal features all over the place -- defined and precise targets off the tee, numerous bunkers on the line of play, and especially severely sloped and/or canted greens. Only in the rarest circumstances, with a player performing at the absolute peak of ability, does it yield multiple birdies without penalty (Miller '73, Tiger could've shot 63 there Saturday with decent putting). TOC, at least in the modern (post-1960) era, has always yielded low rounds in majors when conditions are ripe and players are on their game.
-
I am saying if you mowed it all to fairway height as is done at TOC, then Oakmont would provide the opportunities I suggest. I suspect often the best lines would be outside the bunkers protecting those narrow fairways.
-
It seems to me that being in the fairway these days is a useless statistic for one big reason....it is not always the best angle to approach the green...
Ogilvy is absolutely correct that set ups like Oakmont say here's the only place you can hit the ball without being penalized by thick rough over your ankles...this reduces your options for being in position to attack the pin with your next shot...the bomb and gouge guys would rather have a more suitable angle of attack...this works on the weekly PGA Tour stop where the rough isn't so bad...
Tiger was hitting the ball execptionally well on Saturday at the US Open, but he didn't have many close birdie putts because he couldn't always get the best angle for an approach shot....thus he missed (barely) several 15-20ft putts...
-
Phil, most of the things I've read felt the strongest indicator stat-wise of how well someone is playing is Greens in Regulation.
I prefer scoring average myself ;)