Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Walt_Cutshall on June 12, 2008, 01:20:49 PM
-
I'm sure almost everyone remembers the course setup fiasco at Shinnecock during the 2004 U.S. Open. The greens in particular were allowed to dry out to a point where several of them looked dead. Does anyone have firsthand information about what happened to the greens after the Open? Did any of them actually die? How long was it before the course was back to normal (i.e. healthy condition)?
-
"I'm sure almost everyone remembers the course setup fiasco at Shinnecock during the 2004 U.S. Open. The greens in particular were allowed to dry out to a point where several of them looked dead. Does anyone have firsthand information about what happened to the greens after the Open? Did any of them actually die? How long was it before the course was back to normal (i.e. healthy condition)?"
WaltC:
Yes, many of the greens got anthracnose immediately following the 2004 Open which was something Mark Michaud was basically expecting and it didn't seem to worry him. Since some got it worse than others it was a matter of how to go about the remediation though. My recollection is it took maybe into the fall for a total and full recovery. In my opinion, that guy, Mark Michaud, is just awesome at that stuff---he seems to know exactly what to expect and what to do about it. To my way of thinking, he's about as calm as one can be, at least that's always the way I've seen it.
Matter of fact, within a week of the 2004 Open Wayne and I talked to him on the phone and he said he was so ready he was actually getting sort of bored so he asked us to come up there and talk to him which we did. ;)
Then I went back up there in the week following the Open. You want to talk about the look of about ten massive circuses having just left town!?! My God!
-
anthracnose - thanks Tom. I learned a new word today.
But what I understand you to say is that the greens got diseased, not that they died as was asked in the original post.
-
Anthracnose of turfgrass is found in many areas and climates. It attacks most turfgrasses but is most damaging on Annual Bluegrass (Poa annua) and Bentgrass (Agrostis palustris) in North America. The fungus is an active pathogen of young leaves but it is most readily detected on senescent plant parts.
Symptoms
The pattern of symptoms depends largely on weather conditions. Rotting of the basal stem is the most prevalent symptom detected during cool, wet weather. Water-soaked stem lesions become dark in color and the leaf blades eventually yellow and die. The central stem can be pulled from the plant quite easily revealing a blackened base. Microscopic examination reveals the dark mycelium and hyphopodia.
Reddish-brown lesions may occur when warm weather, dry soil and increased humidity within the turf canopy occur. Reddish-brown irregular patterns on the turf may form as the disease develops. Over time, the patterns turn yellow, tan then brown. Mycelium and acervuli may be detected on the lower stems or on seasoned tissue. Characteristic setae, that look like black, bristly hairs are often associated with the acervuli.
Tony Nysse
Asst. Supt.
Colonial CC
Ft. Worth, TX
-
Maybe Brad Swanson, Ben Dewar or Neil Regan might post the picture taken of the four of us at the 16th at Shinnecock in Sept of '04.
To this day I have never seen a more immaculate golf course with a seemingly perfect "maintenance meld" (another term from my buddy Tom Paul) than Shinnecock Hills on that day.
And yes, I've been to Augusta during tournament week several times.
-
When greens go through a period of super stress like those 2004 Shinnecock greens were under the occurence of anthracnose sure can become an expectation (particularly with poa). Michaud seemed to have expected it, and he was ready when it was said and done and the circus had left town.
Again, my recollection of the course of events with the anthracnose at that point and his decision making was whether to treat the greens that really got it bad sort of separately or to treat all the greens the same way even if some didn't get it so bad. I may be mistaken but I think he opted for the latter, which seemed to me the most reasonable choice given the circumstances.
-
The US Open should be at SH every 9 nine years -- hopefully the '04 incident won't deter future events there.
-
When I had the privilege to play Shinnecock in the fall of 2004 with Gene, Ben and Neil, the greens and course in general was absolutely perfect, including the 7th green. Here are a few shots from that round.
(http://www.heavygen.com/gca/Shinny18&14.jpg)
(http://www.heavygen.com/gca/Shinny7&CH.jpg)
(http://www.heavygen.com/gca/SH164some.jpg)
Cheers,
Brad
-
Look at that turf!
What's even more amazing is how few of the trees (and even some structures) still remain on the course.
Thanks for posting, Brad.
-
Gene,
I see you only order up chamber of commerce weather for your best friends.
Hope you're well.
Mike
-
Deplorable how the myth of a fiasco is still perpetuated.
Do those greens look dead?
-
To this day I have never seen a more immaculate golf course with a seemingly perfect "maintenance meld" (another term from my buddy Tom Paul) than Shinnecock Hills on that day.
For the newbies here, can you please explain what "maintenance meld" is? More importantly, can anyone show us a picture or pictures of what this means?
This is fascinating to learn - that there was controlled chaos at Shinnecock June in 2004. I never understood the issue until now.
-
Deplorable how the myth of a fiasco is still perpetuated.
Do those greens look dead?
Deplorable? How would anyone know what happened after the Open?
-
At least they don't have cart paths!
-
For the newbies here, can you please explain what "maintenance meld" is? More importantly, can anyone show us a picture or pictures of what this means?
Mike, maintenance meld is a term coined by Tom Paul that posits that for each course, there exists an ideal course setup that most efficiently showcases its architecture (that's my paraphrasing, btw). It's the esteemed Tom P's way of saying that in an ideal world, a golf course plays at its best and has its strengths magnified the greatest under a particular set of conditions. For most great courses, this usually means firm and fast, though I suppose there are some courses that are designed for other setups.
Hope that helps.
-----
One man's fiasco is another's masterpiece.
-
I'm sure almost everyone remembers the course setup fiasco at Shinnecock during the 2004 U.S. Open.
What set-up fiasco ?
I must have missed something, the set-up looked fine to me.[/color]
The greens in particular were allowed to dry out to a point where several of them looked dead.
Looked dead to whom ?
To TV viewers ?
To spectators ?
To the players ?
To the green and USGA staff ?
Perhaps you equate lush green greens with healthy or non-dead greens.[/color]
Does anyone have firsthand information about what happened to the greens after the Open?
Yes, they were transitioned from their final day U.S. Open conditions back to their regular member play conditions.[/color]
Did any of them actually die?
No. What first hand evidence would lead you to concluded that ?[/color]
How long was it before the course was back to normal (i.e. healthy condition)?
About the average time it takes for a course to recover from a U.S. Open, or perhaps a bit longer.
Mother Nature still exerts a great deal of influence on course conditions and the transitioning of a course to and from a tournament.
Lots of people know what happened after the Open.
As the pictures reflect, the golf course is in superb condition.[/color]
TEPaul,
I doubt that Mark Michaud was clairvoyant with respect to the arrival of athracnose, which hit just about every course on Long Island and the region.
-
I'm sure almost everyone remembers the course setup fiasco at Shinnecock during the 2004 U.S. Open.
What set-up fiasco ?
I must have missed something, the set-up looked fine to me.[/color]
The greens in particular were allowed to dry out to a point where several of them looked dead.
Looked dead to whom ?
To TV viewers ?
To spectators ?
To the players ?
To the green and USGA staff ?
Perhaps you equate lush green greens with healthy or non-dead greens.[/color]
Does anyone have firsthand information about what happened to the greens after the Open?
Yes, they were transitioned from their final day U.S. Open conditions back to their regular member play conditions.[/color]
Did any of them actually die?
No. What first hand evidence would lead you to concluded that ?[/color]
How long was it before the course was back to normal (i.e. healthy condition)?
About the average time it takes for a course to recover from a U.S. Open, or perhaps a bit longer.
Mother Nature still exerts a great deal of influence on course conditions and the transitioning of a course to and from a tournament.
Lots of people know what happened after the Open.
As the pictures reflect, the golf course is in superb condition.[/color]
TEPaul,
I doubt that Mark Michaud was clairvoyant with respect to the arrival of athracnose, which hit just about every course on Long Island and the region.
Geez what the frack is your problem?! The setup issue that you pretend doesn't exist is the fact that the USGA let the greens dry out to a degree where they no shots would hold--even well struck shots from the fairway. They also put the pins in places where NO ONE could get the ball anywhere near the hole. I believe they had to syringe at least one of the greens so that it was (barely) playable.
I saw a slide show of the course a few days after the tournament and there were large areas of the course that looked dead--and by "looked dead," I mean they looked just like the scorched areas that occur on my home course at times. I also read several stories that the course was closed for some time after the tournament in an effort to save some of the greens and fairways.
The reason I made this post is because I don't have any firsthand knowledge about the situation, since I am not a member there, nor did I play there right afterward. I suppose your pompous and self important post implies that I am not supposed to ask questions like these on this board.
IMHO, you are a gigantic arsehole. I started a reasonable thread asking reasonable questions. Your response was pompous, condescending, disagreeable and reeking of nauseating self importance.
Oh, and by the way, you may want to learn something about HTML coding before you try that color thing again.
-
Walt, Chill. Pat was only answering.
The gist is, your assumptions were and are incorrect. That is not said with malice and neither was Pat's. IMO, The usga and Mark, did not water because there was rain in the forecast. Pins were attainable as evidenced by the winners final round score. Every hole was birdied by someone on that day. A college freshman finished in 16th place because he knew how to play on greens that are harder than normal. The greens did not die. Grass is tough stuff and a few days of stress will only send the grass into dormancy. It may look dead to the average fan, but, until the crown is dried out, or frozen the grass is not dead.
A group of Journalists played the course on Monday and Mark already had water to them.
-
Whoa big fella...Pat knows his stuff. Lets just take a deep breath....
We have all taken our share of heat on this board, but no reason to get personal.
With that said we all saw what happen after three groups came through #7. I am not sure if that has ever happen before? At least I can't remember having to stop play and water a green so players could keep balls on the green.
Anyway, every one take a deep breath...and get back to watching the US Open. This board has had an ulcer all week....everyone just chill.
-
"TEPaul,
I doubt that Mark Michaud was clairvoyant with respect to the arrival of athracnose, which hit just about every course on Long Island and the region."
Patrick:
I didn't say he was clairvoyant, I only said he said he expected it given the stress the course was under in the Open. Did you go over there and talk to him after the Open? I had a bye the following week in the NGLA singles and I went over there and spent about half the day with him and a some other supers who were still there. Those greens took a while to recover. You act like nothing happened to the greens. That wasn't the case.
-
Geez what the frack is your problem?!
My problem is that you made statements based solely on your impressions from watching TV, and presented them as fact, when you had no first hand knowledge of the situation.[/color]
The setup issue that you pretend doesn't exist is the fact that the USGA let the greens dry out to a degree where they no shots would hold--even well struck shots from the fairway.
Really ?
Was that how the course was conditioned on Thursday ?
Friday ?
Saturday ?
Do you think that winds off the ocean have more moisture in them than winds from other directions ?[/color]
They also put the pins in places where NO ONE could get the ball anywhere near the hole.
Which holes, and on what days ?
Thursday ?
Friday ?
Saturday ?
Do you think that winds off the ocean have more moisture in them than winds from other directions ?[/color]
I believe they had to syringe at least one of the greens so that it was (barely) playable.
Are you aware that that's not an uncommon practice during USGA events or just ignorant about these items ?
Which greens on what days ?
Thursday ?
Friday ?
Saturday ?
Do you think that winds off the ocean have more mosture in them than winds from other directions ?[/color]
I saw a slide show of the course a few days after the tournament and there were large areas of the course that looked dead--and by "looked dead," I mean they looked just like the scorched areas that occur on my home course at times.
Since we don't know the name of your home course, nor the conditions of your home course, we can't make any reasonable comparisons.[/color]
I also read several stories that the course was closed for some time after the tournament in an effort to save some of the greens and fairways.
Are most courses closed immediately after the Open ?[/color]
The reason I made this post is because I don't have any firsthand knowledge about the situation, since I am not a member there, nor did I play there right afterward.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have made the pronouncements about the condition of the golf course during and after the Open[/color]
I suppose your pompous and self important post implies that I am not supposed to ask questions like these on this board.
Not at all, questions are how we learn.
Presenting misleading or erroneous information to support your premise is disengenuous.
If you're reaction to being questioned about your facts leads you to call the person who queried you pompous and self important, that's a ploy that merely attempts to mask your ingorance on the subject you brought forth.
You drew conclusions not borne out by the facts.
If you can answer the questions I posed above, please do so.
If you can't, perhaps you should reword your opening and subsequent statements about the set-up and conditioning of Shinnecock during the Open. And, by during the Open, I'm refering to all four (4) rounds.[/color]
IMHO, you are a gigantic arsehole.
Your opinion is worthless to me, especially in light of your opinion of Shinnecock during the U.S. Open.[/color]
I started a reasonable thread asking reasonable questions.
That's your misquided opinion.
Others took exception to your opening remarks, as well. I asked you to support your premise.
That you don't like being challenged to provide the specific facts to support your opinion, which you can't do, would seem to reveal a character flaw, and like an infant, you throw a temper tantrum and resort to name calling.
Try answering the questions.[/color]
Your response was pompous, condescending, disagreeable and reeking of nauseating self importance.
No, it merely asked you to support your position and answer some specific questions which you were unable to do.[/color]
Oh, and by the way, you may want to learn something about HTML coding before you try that color thing again.
If you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the set-up and conditions at Shinnecock I can see how diverting the topic to HTML would take on meaning in your life.[/color]
-
TEPaul,
Athracnose became a major problem to almost every course on Long Island and in the greater Metropolitan area, and none of those other courses hosted the U.S. Open.
The problem wasn't confined to Shinnecock, it was a regional epidemic of sorts.
-
Pat--I do not feel that Walt actually put up any false information to support his case. I, too, hard heard that Shinnecock had great difficulty getting the greens back to superb condition after the 2004 US Open. The green where they lost control was #7, the par 3. I can only recall one person in the final 8 or 10 groups hitting the green and his first put either went in the bunker or well off the green. Walt was simply looking for information, and frankly, Tom gave him what he was looking for. You, however, jumped straight down the throat of a man who was looking for basic information, rather than actually helping him with his question. And we wonder why it seems like he wants to leave the site.
-
"TEPaul,
Athracnose became a major problem to almost every course on Long Island and in the greater Metropolitan area, and none of those other courses hosted the U.S. Open.
The problem wasn't confined to Shinnecock, it was a regional epidemic of sorts."
Pat:
Perhaps, but the man who asked on this thread asked about Shinnecock's greens. It also seems a bit conicidental that there was a regional epidemic of anthracnose just following the 2004 US Open week at Shinnecock. ;) I also don't remember an outbreak of antracnose when I played NGLA's Singles tourney next door that week.
-
Pat--I do not feel that Walt actually put up any false information to support his case.
Really ?
Here's his opening sentence.
I'm sure almost everyone remembers the course setup fiasco at Shinnecock during the 2004 U.S. Open.
I don't recall anyone claiming that the set-up for the entire U.S. Open was a "FIASCO"
I challenged him on his "categorization" and asked him questions relative to his pronouncement.
His response was to act like an infant throwing a temper tantrum, complete with name calling.
If he can't take being question about his pronouncements, tell him not to make assessments that he can't support.[/color]
I, too, hard heard that Shinnecock had great difficulty getting the greens back to superb condition after the 2004 US Open. The green where they lost control was #7, the par 3.
I can only recall one person in the final 8 or 10 groups hitting the green and his first put either went in the bunker or well off the green.
If only one person in the final 8 or 10 groups hit the green, how is that reflective on the set up and/or condition of the green ?[/color]
Walt was simply looking for information, and frankly, Tom gave him what he was looking for.
You, however, jumped straight down the throat of a man who was looking for basic information, rather than actually helping him with his question.
I didn't jump down his throat, I questioned his blatant categorization of the U.S. Open and Shinnecock as a "fiasco"
If you're interested in learning, you don't make a statement that you can't support, and whine when you're questioned about it.[/color]
And we wonder why it seems like he wants to leave the site.
Listen, he was the one who started name calling when he was questioned.
If he wants to leave tell him not to let the door hit him in the ass as he exits.[/color]
TEPaul,
Athracnose stayed around for a few seasons. Many clubs suffered because of it.
GCGC was particularly hard hit.
The outbreak was so widespread that I believe that the USGA might have put out a position paper for the benefit of local clubs.
-
Pat--I watched that Open as it took place. The guys that did not hit the green on 7 missed no matter how they hit the ball. Run-up shots would not hold, balls landing on the green didn't hold, chips rolled back off the green and putts rolled off the green. I am not certain I consider the whole set-up bad, I do however consider that hole a very poor set-up and Tom Meeks even admitted that it was a poor set-up. The way that hole was played was as poor a set-up as Olympic in 1998 on Friday. Now, that doesn't equate to the whole course being poor, however, I have heard that many people, including players felt the greens were nearly dead with wilt showing on most. Perhaps this is what Walt equated to a fiasco. I personally would not have used that strong a word, but I do feel the set-up, #7 in particular, was very, VERY close to being over the top.
-
JKM,
I don't think one hole in one round merits condemnation of the entire tournament.
71 holes seemed pretty good to me.
I wonder how many players attempted a high fade into # 7 on Sunday ?
Didn't the hole play downwind that day, making it more difficult to hold ?
-
Pat--I did not condemn the whole tournament. I just know that the commentators on that day were talking about how the course was set-up and that the greens were basically on the edge of being dead. There seemed on TV to be significant wilt in all the greens. And again, I had heard the same thing about the greens nearly dying after the tournament.
-
Pat--I did not condemn the whole tournament.
I didn't say that you did, Walt C did when he described it as a fiasco.[/color]
I just know that the commentators on that day were talking about how the course was set-up and that the greens were basically on the edge of being dead.
I guess it depends on how much credence you give the announcers.[/color]
There seemed on TV to be significant wilt in all the greens.
And again, I had heard the same thing about the greens nearly dying after the tournament.
Unlike Craig Disher I'm not qualified to draw agronomic conclusions from watching a course on TV.
Is "nearly dying" similar to "mostly dead" as in "The Princess" Bride ? [/color]
-
Pat--I am not familiar with the Princess Bride analogy, so I can't answer that one.
-
I'm sure almost everyone remembers the course setup fiasco at Shinnecock during the 2004 U.S. Open. The greens in particular were allowed to dry out to a point where several of them looked dead. Does anyone have firsthand information about what happened to the greens after the Open? Did any of them actually die? How long was it before the course was back to normal (i.e. healthy condition)?
Jeepers Pat
You do have a way of making mountains out of molehills. I see a lot of questions asked above with the exception of the first two sentences. While I enjoyed the Shinny Open there is no question that the USGA stepped over the line with 7th hole. Many would call this a fiasco and since the 7th is a part of the course, using the phrase "course setup fiasco" is not out of line. There would have been no harm in answering the questions presented without the long winded bullshit - save that nonsense for your kids.
Ciao
-
I was at Shinnecock all 7 days in 2004.
the setup WAS a fiasco
they cut the tall rough 40 yards off line(that the members deal with every day), they planted squirrelly, weird silly green rough one yard off line.
the last day was a fiasco-the first 3 were OK
A great course the rest of the year, too bad they didn't use it for the 2004 Open.
-
jeff--in regards to Shinny, how much different do you think it may have been set-up with Mike Davis instead of Tom Meeks?
-
I was there all 4 days and with high-ups in the USGA (who shall remain anonymous) most of the time. I was also the club photographer for Shinney and inside the ropes during the action Saturday and Sunday. Here's what happened as I saw it from close in.
For the first 2 1/2 days the weather was humid and basically windless - highly anomalous for June in Southampton. The golf course was defenseless under those conditions (you may remember that Tiger holed out a lob wedge on 18 for eagle Friday afternoon ! ). The leaders were 6 under going into the weekend. Saturday at about 1 or 2 PM a northwest front started to come through w/o rain. It was from the beginning a dry wind as these normally are. The leaders started giving back strokes as it freshened steadily through the afternoon. As I walked across the course at the close of play Saturday, I noticed that the greens were not being watered in spite of the fact that they were obviously drying out considerably at that point. I remember finding that strange at the time.
Saturday night the wind continued to freshen and the humidity continued to drop. Sunday morning at around 7 AM the USGA went out to cut the holes, the greens still not having been watered. The original hole position planned for 7 was scrapped, and the hole was cut in a place where putts held at 7 AM, I'm told. Still no watering took place, and as the sun rose in the sky and continured the drying process, by 10 AM as the first groups came through, balls no longer held. The rest is history.
I'm told there was a miscommunication between the USGA and Shinney's grounds crew - who were not told (or told not) to water the greens. Why did this happen ? I suspect that the USGA
wanted Shinney to play hard, it having been defenseless w/o wind the first 2 1/2 days. I also suspect that they simply failed to consider the drying out power of the low humidity nor'wester. It's not the standard, humid smokey sou'wester that is the normal trade wind for which Shiiney was routed and which had shown up on schedule during the '86 and '95 Opens. However one explains it, it was still a major screwup. The fairways were cut to tightly also, IMO, and the primary rough was cut in a blotchly manner, which I've never understood. Neither conditions were present in '86 or '95.
Still, Goosen and Michelson waged a battle royal throughout the last ten holes and had no problems putting untlil Phil lost concentration on 17 with 3 putts from 5 feet. Since they were in adjacent groups, I took in most of the action by running a series of 400 yd. sprints back and forth. Thrilling it was. Goosen had ice in his veins that afternoon. His was the greatest putting exhibition I've ever seen.
-
Sean Arble,
Had Walt C singled out the 7th hole on Sunday instead of blanketly condemning the entire Open my response would have been different.
If you equate pointed questions with long winded bullshit, then, like my children, you don't know much about the Open at Shinnecock either.
Mother Nature's influence on course set-up and playing conditions almost universally trumps man's hand.
Try preparing a golf course so that it peaks on Sunday afternoon.
Mistakes were made, but, how many of you are perfect when it comes to the performance of your jobs ?
Jeff Warne,
The first three days were fine.
Things got away from them Saturday night and Sunday morning.
-
Sean Arble,
Had Walt C singled out the 7th hole on Sunday instead of blanketly condemning the entire Open my response would have been different.
If you equate pointed questions with long winded bullshit, then, like my children, you don't know much about the Open at Shinnecock either.
Mother Nature's influence on course set-up and playing conditions almost universally trumps man's hand.
Try preparing a golf course so that it peaks on Sunday afternoon.
Mistakes were made, but, how many of you are perfect when it comes to the performance of your jobs ?
Jeff Warne,
The first three days were fine.
Things got away from them Saturday night and Sunday morning.
Pat
What? By not signaling out one hole Walt condemed the entire Open? If you stepped back, took a deep breath and reflected for few moments, you might have come to the understanding that Walt was asking questions (as he later confirmed) - not making pronouncements other than to state things got out of hand - which of course they did.
As for the USGA and Shinny. It was a monumental cockup and rightfully embarrasing. BECAUSE the weather is unpredictable a bit of leeway in course setup should be allowed. Its a fine line between a keeping the course right on the edge and going ott. Perhaps the USGA should have made that line a bit thicker.
Ciao
-
Frank Hannigan thought the USGA screwed up big-time at Shinnecock. On June 28 2004, he said:
"Bad as the US Open was at Shinnecock Hills, and it was very bad, I still found it compelling compared with the renewal of the PGA Tour season last week. The latter featured kids without waist lines hitting 2 iron tee shots 275 yards followed by wedges into pudding greens.
"The US Open, however, had the same allure as a public execution in l7th century England. I wonder if Cromwell sold hospitality tents for the beheading of Charles I?
"The Women's Open happens this week. With it the USGA has its first opportunity since Shinnecock to begin the long, slow process of wiping clean the stain."
And Hannigan again, in the Scotsman.com, July 18, 2004…"At the recent US Open there was a world-class foul-up followed by what in high political circles is called the "cover-up."
Here is a quote from Geoff Shackelford about how the USGA blew it:
"Anthony Cotton of the Denver Post interviews Tom Meeks who was in town to see how he could mess up Cherry Hills. The infamous USGA rules official speaks about how, after 30 years on the job, he’s still learning. He admits mistakes were made at Shinnecock, but it’s not clear who made them.
"Meeks also acknowledges that watering the greens after Saturday’s third round of U.S. Open play and before Sunday’s finale would have averted the final day debacle (which followed the Saturday debacle). This takes me back to Saturday evening when The Golf Channel’s Rich Lerner’s interviewed Meeks as winds howled and the man in charge of the course denied then that watering was necessary.
"Fascinating that a Golf Channel reporter can recognize what is necessary to keep the course playable and after 30 years and several Open screw-ups Meeks cannot."
-
Pat,
agreed the first 3 days were fine on the greens,(although the dead calm conditions were disappointing)
We all know the greens were a debacle when the PREDICTED weather front blew through saturday night.
My gripe is cutting the fescue and bluestem that's always there(that the members deal with every day) and adding the silly, weird, green rough at fairways edge.
Just set the fairway width and angles and let them play golf.
or better yet, do nothing and let them play
-
Jeff is correct. The fairway width's were the only element that did not fit the design. The firmness would only have accentuated the excitement and help popularize the firm and fast school. The result would have been that more bunkers were in play.
There was quite a movement, at that time, for the F&F school. Shinny should have been the ideal case study for the world's stage.
I recall Tom Paul making a certain prediction, that came true, but, because of this furor over the seventh green, black eyes were handed out and the soft and predictable crowd made their voices heard. Who remembers that guy Thompson?