Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jason Topp on June 30, 2008, 09:32:56 AM
-
After spending a couple of days at the women's US Open and having watched the US Open on television the last couple of years, I can only applaud the way the USGA has been creative in setting up its courses.
Interlachen never played to the full listed yardage. Instead, they used forward tees in many instances to create interesting opportunities for aggressive play. On Sunday, forward tees were used on 7, 10 and 13 to make eagles possibilities. Such choices were particularly interesting on 7 and 13 which played downwind. On Saturday, I did not see much of the course but a forward tee was used on 12 to shorten the par three by 20 yards but the pin was put in the back left portion of the green surrounded by water on three sides. Even the decision to play the course as a par 73 should be applauded. With rain, the winning score could have been deep under par but the USGA ignored that concern.
In the US Open, the USGA has shown similar creativity. The graduated rough idea has made the tournament more entertaining. There have been many opportunities for agressive play and there have not been the disasters that occurred too frequently during prior years.
While we bemoan the Masters for becoming less interesting to watch, we should applaud the USGA for its fresh approach to its championships.
-
An old man, a guy with a broken leg and a teenage girl. What's next?
-
How bout borrowing a page from the All England L&T Club and paying the women what they pay the men?
-
How bout borrowing a page from the All England L&T Club and paying the women what they pay the men?
Or you could be fair about it and pay a purse based on revenue generated.
I'm all for equality, but some folks confuse equal opportunity with something else. I don't think there is much disparity between the interest level in women's and men's tennis. There surely is in golf.
-
Mike Davis is on the right end of the trend pendulum in terms of set-up. He trained under a terrific guy in Tom Meeks. But Meeks worked for people who wanted pain and suffering. They wanted distance and the only drama they wanted was tragedy born of trying circumstances. Meeks did what was asked of him and he did it quite well. There were occasional moments of lunacy and it was probably this lunacy that pushed the pendulum in the more playful and strategic direction that Davis is now pursuing. But, trust me, he's able to pursue it because his Competition Committee is moving in that direction.
Fred Ridley is a smart and sensible guy who now has influence at Augusta. Maybe he'll be able to persuade those who make the final decisions on setup to make the course a little easier, particularly on the back nine. He should be able to influence them to go with the trend pendulum.
At the end of the day, this is about learning from experience. There probably has been an overreaction to the technological improvements in club and ball technology and now we're finally seeing some retraction on the way great tournaments are set up.
Mike Davis is getting a lot of credit for being there when the pendulum swung back toward playfulness and playability.
He deserves the credit.
-
You know what's way more annoying than an OT thread? A hijacked thread.
Nice try, Jason. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that the purse (if you'll excuse the expression) has anything to do with the topic at hand.
I agree with you. The course was set up just great, day after day. (Rose and I were there all week.) You're right that if we'd had a bunch of rain, the scores would have been low, low, low. But there was this, too: If we'd had the kinds of winds all week that we had yesterday, and that we've had pretty much nonstop since April Fool's Day, the scores would have been high, high, high -- and the uninformed would have blamed the USGA for a brutal setup.
Here's what I saw (and heard, and felt with my feet): The fairways were wide enough. The rough was tough enough. The greens were fast and firm enough. And the teeing grounds were interesting enough.
I only wish someone at the USGA would diplomatically suggest to the powers at Interlachen that No. 7 (members 16) would be an even more interesting hole, from any tee, if the front bunkers were somewhat narrower, and there were a closely mown path between them up to the green.
-
Give high mark to Mike Davis -- but if people on this site and elsewhere have a better memory they will make note of what Kerry Haigh has been doing for a good bit more years with the PGA Championship. Haigh has seen fit to keep the event entertaining without the sheer focus on the pain and suffering dimension.
Glad to see the USGA had the wisdom in letting Mike set up the national championships with such choice holes in the events.
-
The par 37 on the back left littie doubt that this was a Women's championship.
-
Sorry, Jason!
Your post about similarities of setups and "fresh approach" got me thinking about differences between the two, which for some reason led me back to the decisions of Havermeyer in the 1890s and Joe Dey in the 1930s.
This in turn reminded me of the USGA's mission of "for the good of the game and - blah blah blah, too much lateral thinking!
But that's just an explanation, not an excuse.
Dan, giving fellow posters the benefit of the doubt is more likely to improve the civility of the site, if that's important to you. If though we seek the opposite, then I recommend we continue to act according to our worst assumptions.
Mark
-
I thought this was the most boring ending of a US Open I have ever witnessed. Why is this set up being celebrated if it lacked entertainment?
-
I thought this was the most boring ending of a US Open I have ever witnessed. Why is this set up being celebrated if it lacked entertainment?
Because a great setup of a great golf course doesn't guarantee a finish that will be entertaining to every viewer.
It's certainly not the USGA's fault that Helen Alfredsson is a lousy putter!
One young woman vastly outplayed the field yesterday. It's as simple as that.
-
I would say that an over simplified set up allowed an untested child an opportunity to win a US Open. We were very close to having the oldest and then the youngest champions in the history of this great championship on the first two tries at this new mind set. This isn't supposed to be tee ball where everyone wins.
-
I don't know that the setup had anything to do with the outcome. Creamer puked. Repeatedly. So did the rookie that Johnny Miller was heralding as the next Sorenstam. So did Alfredsson. It was sort of a typical US Open where everybody except the winner looks like they're crawling on broken glass and the winner is in some sort of a trance as he/she waltzes to the title. In-Bee Park was singularly unaffected by the pressure of the final round and her score reflected this fact.
As for the golf course, I only got to see the last seven holes or so, but it looked really magnificent to me.
-
... an over simplified set up ...
Please be specific.
-
I would say that an over simplified set up allowed an untested child an opportunity to win a US Open. We were very close to having the oldest and then the youngest champions in the history of this great championship on the first two tries at this new mind set. This isn't supposed to be tee ball where everyone wins.
I'm not sure I understand. The golf ball didn't know how old In Bee walk in the Park was yesterday. She played beautiful golf. The rest of the contenders didn't.
Double bogies on #2 for Creamer and Lewis in the final group? What the heck happened! That's an easy hole. Someone somehow got over the back...a near-fatal mistake on a course where the main goal is to stay below the hole.
Sketchy sand play by anyone that left themselves with medium to long bunker shots...no doubt worried about hitting it over.
Again Lewis and Creamer - BOTH over the back on #9! This happened in part because the tee was pulled back, leaving a longer approach. The shape of the green mandates that you have the right club and execute. Wrong on either and you suffer.
Creamer on #10...goes for the green (why?) and then plops her pitch into a branch. Poor course management on someone forced to desperation because the leader was not wavering.
Alfredsson missing short putts all day. Ouch. She's snakebit.
On the good side, how about Park's approach on #15! Unreal back to that hole location. Creamer tried the same and came up on the side of the mounded green. Execution.
You may call a walk in the park boring, but others celebrated Woods' runaways in 1997 and 2000. Park's romp was along those lines yesterday, with the exception that she's not an overpowering golfer a la Alfredsson or Wie.
She had it on cruise control. Boring if you say it is, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that was duly impressed by a player whose game was in another league. Sorenstam had been striking it beautifully all week and needed a holeout to break 80. Park put pressure on everyone by eliminating mistakes. That's not unusual in the U.S. Open.
The oversimplified setup certainly had enough teeth on Sunday when there was some wind.
-
... an over simplified set up ...
Please be specific.
Does the course usually play as a par 37 on the back? If not then why was a hole changed?
-
... an over simplified set up ...
Please be specific.
Does the course usually play as a par 37 on the back? If not then why was a hole changed?
Yes. (It plays as a par-37 on the front. The nines are flipped for these national-type competitions.)
John Conley is right: They played the nines as the members do for the Walker Cup. They flipped the nines for the Solheim Cup and this U.S. Open.
-
Does the course usually play as a par 37 on the back? If not then why was a hole changed?
So your post was made with no familiarity of the course? Okay.
No, the course usually plays as par 37 on the front. Nines were switched for the US Open.
In the 1993 Walker Cup it did play as a par 72, but that was made by reducing par on #11 to 4 from 5, still leaving three par 5s on the front.
Are there any other courses where you play five par 5s in the first 12 holes? Only one I've seen.
-
John,
Thank you for a considerate reply to the ignorance of my situation. I do believe we are entering dangerous territory when we celebrate a course because of set up over architecture.
Some feel that Torrey Pines is only as good as the set up...Is Interlachen any different? What shined this weekend, the course or the set up?
-
Jaka, I'd say Interlachen gets an A (as expected by most, it really is a good venue for this crowd) and the USGA gets an A-.
At the US Open I'd say it is an A for the USGA and a B+ for the course.
You are correct there was more drama in San Diego than there was in Minneapolis. I don't think that is a direct result of either venue or setup...just how it works out sometimes.
I've gotta ask...were you bored with this event but usually find LPGA Tour action compelling, or is it just harder to get excited about slower swing speeds playing a course more or less set up for everyday member play?
-
Some feel that Torrey Pines is only as good as the set up...Is Interlachen any different? What shined this weekend, the course or the set up?
I don't know anything about Torrey Pines. I've never been there.
But I was at Interlachen all week.
Both shone. The course and the setup of the course.
Is there any GC architecture that would shine if it were set up badly? Aren't architecture and setup inextricably linked (no pun intended)?
-
I was bored because nobody smiled and could not pick up Creamer's pink ball on TV. I am concerned that the course may have let Lewis hang around too long and allowed Park to bunt and putt her way home. The only good thing was that the women in contention we so unattractive that my wife sat next to me and did not pitch a bitch about me watching womens golf. She made one interesting comment that she thought that Anika was wearing a skirt too long for her age.
I did enjoy when Alfredsen was putting the view from behind reminded me of Michael Douglas in Basic Instinct. Her putter grip looked like his junk.
-
Is there any GC architecture that would shine if it were set up badly? Aren't architecture and setup inextricably linked (no pun intended)?
Olympic, Shinnecock, Winged Foot...With Meeks it was always great course, poor set up..This bothers me.
-
Barney, Not to confuse Park with Tiger, was his US Open victory at Pebble more closely contested than this Women's Open. Was his ability to lap the field and destroy any drama (other than that created by his great play) caused by a simplified set up? Why couldn't any ot the other contenders cope with the set up?
-
Barney, Not to confuse Park with Tiger, was his US Open victory at Pebble more closely contested than this Women's Open. Was his ability to lap the field and destroy any drama (other than that created by his great play) caused by a simplified set up? Why couldn't any ot the other contenders cope with the set up?
I also found that tournament boring and do not know if Tiger's margin of victory was a crucial event that led to the "Meeks" model. I am not concerned at all with great champions running away from a field as I am with turning the US Open into a British Open format that allows lesser players an opportunity to cruise the first three days and hold on to win.
-
Maybe we should make that "players with lesser resumes," rather than "lesser players."
Under Open pressure, anyone who got past the 9th green on Sunday without experiencing disaster strikes me as more than a lesser player. That was a hole where you simply had to take double bogey out of the equation, and approach it with the willingness to make a bogey. Creamer failed to do that -- I like an Open setup that presents the field with at least one potential disaster hole, and challenges them to play it with more brains than courage.
-
Barney; your last comment implies that you believe the set up got tougher the last day making it harder for anyone to shoot a score and catch the leader. This suggestion ignores the fact that the winner was not in the last group; the leaders blew up and were unable to shoot a score. Often, the magnitude of the tournament "hits'" the contenders as they get closer to the finish. Also, weather can have an impact. For example, Olympia Fields "suffered" from lower scoring in the first 2 rounds because the rough was cut too low before the tourney in anticipation of some growth. Thwere was also very little wind. However the conditions got tougher for the weekend and lo and behold, almost everybody backed up.
Finally your contention that the "new" set up will lead to fluke winners as opposed to the old ways doesn't explain the large number of non household names who won under the old conditions. Mutiple winners like Lee Jantzen and Andy North come to mind. Orville Moody is another all time great who holds the US Open title. Scott Simpson was a winner. Jack Fleck beat Hogan. This is not to denigrate their achievemnents; anybody who stands up to that pressure is worthy of respect. But lets not pretend that the driving contest created by extremely narrow fairways lined with ferocious rough and ultra fast greens surrounded by tall collars identified the best on a consistent basis. Golf by its nature is more likely to have upset victors than a sport like tennis, but it seems that the US Open magnified this difference. There are manyexamples on the women's side as well. Think of Laurie Merten and Hillary Lunke in recent years.
-
All those white pants on Sunday had me thinking of Hillary Lunke.
Hogan once said something like you can get lucky and win the US Open once but do it twice and you are a great golfer. I take his word on Jantzen and North.
My position can not be defended by logic. Tom Meeks is from my home town and still comes around a bit. I just hate to see the guy thrown out with the laundry because of some Johnny-come-lately who for some reason is suddenly bigger than the architecture.
-
All those white pants on Sunday had me thinking of Hillary Lunke.
Hogan once said something like you can get lucky and win the US Open once but do it twice and you are a great golfer. I take his word on Jantzen and North.
My position can not be defended by logic. Tom Meeks is from my home town and still comes around a bit. I just hate to see the guy thrown out with the laundry because of some Johnny-come-lately who for some reason is suddenly bigger than the architecture.
Thanks for identifying your bias. Mike Davis' set-up have been excellent because, IMO, they are in concert with the architecture -- the set-up does not compete.
Just because many people have praised Mike Davis, I don't think anyone has thrown Tom what's-his-name out with the laundry. :-*
-
Thanks for identifying your bias. Mike Davis' set-up have been excellent because, IMO, they are in concert with the architecture -- the set-up does not compete.
The only concert of architecture heard in changing the 14th at Torrey into a 277 yd par four was Davis blowing his own horn.
-
Thanks for identifying your bias. Mike Davis' set-up have been excellent because, IMO, they are in concert with the architecture -- the set-up does not compete.
The only concert of architecture heard in changing the 14th at Torrey into a 277 yd par four was Davis blowing his own horn.
John:
You said previously, My position can not be defended by logic...
That's apparent. I don't know Tom Meeks, but I have met him and he seems like a good person. Clearly, you have never met Mike Davis because if you had, even in your mood, you would choke on the words about Mike blowing his own horn because that remark could not be further from the truth.
-
"My position can not be defended by logic. Tom Meeks is from my home town and still comes around a bit. I just hate to see the guy thrown out with the laundry because of some Johnny-come-lately who for some reason is suddenly bigger than the architecture."
John:
That's sure true your position cannot be defended by logic involving championship setup and architecture. Your position seems to be to defend a guy you know because you know him and I guess that's cool too but it doesn't have much to do with championship set-up and architecture. Tom Meeks had a long and distinguished career as the USGA Competitions Director that included some pretty significant set-up glitches but that's sort of the nature of that business, I guess. The fact is in about two years Mike Davis has already shown his new championship set-up philosophy is about 500% more creative than Meeks' was and about 1000% more interesting for players and viewers alike. Davis just seems to have far better ideas on how to use all the ramifications that architecture can supply if it's set up creatively.
-
TE,
Has Davis been in charge two years or two tournaments?
-
Let me make it clear that I do not have a problem with Davis...I have a problem with the automatic assumption that both Meeks and Torrey Pines were sub-standard.
-
Davis just seems to have far better ideas on how to use all the ramifications that architecture can supply if it's set up creatively.
Or perhaps the current leaders of the USGA -- above Mr. Davis, who does work for them -- are more willing to let creative ideas be expressed?
I'm not saying; I'm just asking.
I see no need to rank Mr. Davis and Mr. Meeks, as setup guys.
I, at least, don't have the necessary facts.
-
"Let me make it clear that I do not have a problem with Davis...I have a problem with the automatic assumption that both Meeks and Torrey Pines were sub-standard."
JohnK:
Are you actually trying to say that Mike Davis DID NOT make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?? ;)
I don't look at Meeks as sub-standard. I look at him as a guy who had a particular philosophy about US Open or championship setup that became the standard during his approximately 25 years on the job. I just think that Davis instituted a far more creative, interesting and exciting philosophy to championship setup and championship tournament play. If Meeks was still on the job, the question is would he have done things in any way like Davis has?
This is a different subject and perhaps a small thing to you but I saw Meeks once threaten to penalize a match play group (two players) in the US Junior championship for slow play. One of the players was not in the slightest bit slow and Meeks could see that but the other one most certainly was. That Meeks would even think to penalize the one who wasn't is just something I violently disagree with and always have. Unfortunately, this type of mentality seems to have become something of the new standard for USGA championship with Rule 6-7 and I think it's just aweful. I think it's a complete abdication of a tournament committee to do their jobs and a blatant attempt to saddle players with doing something to other players which they should not be made to do.
Both match play and stroke play golf will always be essentially individual endeavors and to saddle a player who is not violating a Rule with penalty for something some other player is doing, particularly with pace, is just really a corruption of all that golf is to me.
-
TE,
I have a long history of saying that I think Torrey Pines is a great course. Not to blow my own horn, but I went so far to accurately predict this was going to be the greatest US Open of modern times because I believe that much in the championship architecture of the course. It disappoints and worries me to now see the intellectuals of the game have another crutch to rest against their mantle of discontent in the form of the set up guy.
If they have decided a course or architect is unworthy in their eyes no matter how well each performs the guy who puts out the tee markers can now get all the credit. I agree that there are few things worse than a super who even given multiple options puts a 6 iron in your hand for every par 3 or doesn't cut the greens before your anticipated outing...and I know that it is impossible to avoid criticism when that happens. What I do not believe is that the guy who puts out the tee markers is capable of overriding poor architecture during a four day tournament or outing. Torrey Pines, Rees Jones and the good people of San Diego deserve the credit. The course is still there and is no more or less an architectural pig than the day Mike Davis set foot or departed the course.
This is a site that should glorify architects and architecture not the local tee marker guy.
-
TE,
How do you penalize two players in match play?
I wouldn't recognize Tom Meeks if he was on the first tee in front of me. He is from my home town of 4,000 people and we share many of the same friends. My uncle even bought his mothers house. The one thing that made me proud was when he put Payne Stewart on the clock during the US Open at Olympic. As a rules official he was never accused of needing to grow a set. I would have to question why given his strong stance against slow play his era failed so miserably at ever doing anything about it.
-
I have a long history of saying that I think Torrey Pines is a great course. Not to blow my own horn, but I went so far to accurately predict this was going to be the greatest US Open of modern times because I believe that much in the championship architecture of the course.
It was a great U.S. Open, but not due to the course or its architecture. The Open was great because Tiger Woods was injured and hadn't played for two months. If not for that, we would have seen another Tiger blowout IMO.
-
Jim,
That is the intellectual party line. I'm in the camp of believing what I was seeing. I saw great shots, interesting putts, recoveries and options, options, options. Like I said a during the tournament...Torrey passed the Mackenzie test given that a championship was fought to the 91st holes between two players of very different games. To me that is architecture at its finest.
-
"Let me make it clear that I do not have a problem with Davis...I have a problem with the automatic assumption that both Meeks and Torrey Pines were sub-standard."
Are you actually trying to say that Mike Davis DID NOT make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?? ;)
I don't look at Meeks as sub-standard. I look at him as a guy who had a particular philosophy about US Open or championship setup that became the standard during his approximately 25 years on the job. I just think that Davis instituted a far more creative, interesting and exciting philosophy to championship setup and championship tournament play. If Meeks was still on the job, the question is would he have done things in any way like Davis has?
I know, like, and greatly admire both men and I think you are quite correct that their philosophy comes from different points in time. We can't forget that they work for an organization that has a Competition Committee which has great influence on setup philosophy. Over the course of time, that thinking changed. It so happens that it changed in a manner that suits this gca crowd, but Mike Davis and his committee changed because they learned things as the game changed in the past ten years.
Meeks is surely more of an old school soul and a tough guy where Davis seems gentler, but those are personality issues, not talent issues. Personally, I think Meeks was eminently capable of changing with the times had he not retired. Saying that takes nothing away from Davis's remarkable work.
-
John, whether or not it's the party line, do you think Tiger would not have played better, except for his injury and 2 month absence from competitive golf?
Another question. Did you see all those great shots, options and compelling golf this year during the Buick? Architecture was basically the same. Yet Tiger won by 8. His fourth win in a row there, I believe.
Year in, year out, Tiger demolishes everyone at Torrey Pines. He owns the place. By the standards you set up -- a championship fought to the end by players of very differing abilities -- doesn't that mean the architecture is pretty bad?
Another difference between Torrey and every other U.S. Open site: the guys play Torrey every year, and know the course extremely well. That has to help them come up with some great shots and outstanding rounds. Same is true at ANGC, I think, or was until they Open-ized their course.
-
"I know, like, and greatly admire both men and I think you are quite correct that their philosophy comes from different points in time. We can't forget that they work for an organization that has a Competition Committee which has great influence on setup philosophy. Over the course of time, that thinking changed. It so happens that it changed in a manner that suits this gca crowd, but Mike Davis and his committee changed because they learned things as the game changed in the past ten years."
TerryL:
I think that statement of yours is very true and very prescient, even if it implies a whole lot more than it actually says.
I sort of hesitate to say what I'm about to for a number of reasons, but in my opinion, and in many ways, the USGA really does have something of a "closed shop" attitude about some of the things they think and do and say.
I certainly realize that a lot of people look at that as the USGA being sort of close-minded or even standoffish or elitist. I don't look at them that way at all really and this is after years of dealing with them in many ways and many areas. I think that kind of attitude is basically just borne out of the fact that in so many areas that they deal in with golf----Rules, handicapping, championship setups etc, they just get sort of overwhelmed and gunshy hearing so many different opinions from so many different people telling them that their way is better than anyone else's way including the USGA's way. In many ways, this particular website is probably the best and most visible expression of people telling them that some other way is better than the USGA's way. ;)
I mean really, there is only so much of that any organization can take!
I've had a couple of really terrific conversations with Mike Davis about architecture, setups, green speed, green surface firmness, "through the green" firmness and width etc, etc. The only thing I never did talk to him about was this idea of graduated rough which really may be his own unique idea. That is just something that never occured to me.
But in all those conversations it just seemed to me we were so much on the same page and most of those conversations were before Oakmont and Torrey even though one was after Oakmont.
But at the end of one early conversation Mike Davis said something to me that I will never forget, and I think of it all the time and it really resonates. I think it's just a really intelligence and realistic thing for someone like that to say to someone like me, and it's what I sort of hesitate to say on here but I'm going to anyway because I think it's so important at this point on this particular subject.
What he said at the end of that early conversation was: "It's been nice talking with you about all this and I'm glad for these kinds of discussions but don't forget I have my bosses too."
I know you know where he was coming from on that and where I am too. But that was then and this is now. Back then he didn't know how it would all play out apparently even if his new philosophy was clear to him and to me. Now he knows and so do most of the rest of us. It was just a real success and hopefully now his bosses are just about totally onboard with his new philosophy. Frankly, I couldn't possibly imagine why they wouldn't be! ;)