Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: David Stamm on August 05, 2008, 11:19:31 PM
-
John Hawkins, the journalist that has also been doing analysis for TGC, says that to win at Oakland Hills does not require a great putting. He claims that the greens are so wildly contoured that it takes the putter out of players hands. Agree or not?
-
No. I don't believe there is anything that can reduce the importance of putting in golf.
-
David,
"Wildly contoured" greens and speeds approaching 12.5 will still require a good putter. It just opens the field a bit deeper...IMO.
VS should struggle on these greens.
js
-
No. I don't believe there is anything that can reduce the importance of putting in golf.
Matt, I got the impression Oakmont may have done that in 2007. That is a big reason Cabrera, one of the tour's poorest putters -- he ranked 166th on tour that year -- won. I think he even said something along those lines.
-
No. I don't believe there is anything that can reduce the importance of putting in golf.
Matt, I got the impression Oakmont may have done that in 2007. That is a big reason Cabrera, one of the tour's poorest putters -- he ranked 166th on tour that year -- won. I think he even said something along those lines.
By that logic, shouldn't poor putters have a great chance at Augusta, too? But that's just not how it goes.
-
John Hawkins, the journalist that has also been doing analysis for TGC, says that to win at Oakland Hills does not require a great putting. He claims that the greens are so wildly contoured that it takes the putter out of players hands. Agree or not?
David
Its a load of hogwash. The pros are good enough to know when to putt to hole out and when to lag. They are also good enough to know that sometimes chipping away from the hole to leave a relatively flat 10 footer for par is more sensible than trying to pull off the 1 in 10 chip. It may be true that the USGA gets the greens running too fast, but it isn't true that the greens eliminate thinking.
Ciao
-
No. I don't believe there is anything that can reduce the importance of putting in golf.
Matt, I got the impression Oakmont may have done that in 2007. That is a big reason Cabrera, one of the tour's poorest putters -- he ranked 166th on tour that year -- won. I think he even said something along those lines.
By that logic, shouldn't poor putters have a great chance at Augusta, too? But that's just not how it goes.
Maybe because they play ANGC each year, they know the greens well. Also, maybe Oakmont's greens are tougher? I'll see if I can find average putts per GIR, some other stats like that.
For sure Tiger putted very poorly that week. On Saturday he shot 69, with 35 putts as I recall. I'm almost as sure that Angel made some comment about the greens equalizing everyone.
A real tight, heavily-roughed course can take shot-making abilities out of the equation. Often given as one reason Seve never won a U.S. Open. Perhaps in a similar way real tough greens can neutralize putting.
-
Completely disagree. That's like saying that the course is so hard tee to green that it mitigates the need for ball striking (which it is).
The macro undulations/tiers on these greens require a great deal of imagination as it relates to pace, which is unlikely to occur with a lousy putter.
After seeing it last year, post reeeestoration, my vote is on the guy that can hit fairways. And I mean the center; the widest one being 26 paces. If there's a vulnerability in the course it's the "not too long" approach shots into the large greens resulting from relatively firm fairways.
-
Ball striking is the most important ingredient to good putting...and Oakland Hills and Oakmont and Augusta all highlight that.
-
Perhaps wild greens do level the field as poor weather conditions allow the underdog to be closer to the favorite in most sports competition. My logic is that the great putter will always beat the poorer putter on flat greens. The stroke at this point is everything. With some contour reading the green enters into it but the stroke is still key. With wild greens it seems to me that the great putter will not be making as many ten footers. The lesser putter also will not but the gap is less.
-
Ball striking is the most important ingredient to good putting...and Oakland Hills and Oakmont and Augusta all highlight that.
I'm not sure what you mean. Hitting it solid with the putter? Getting it close to the hole with approach shots?
-
I think that his overarching comment was that Oakland Hills is a ballstriker's course and that the nutty putting surfaces tend to neutralize the mastery of the better putters on tour. That's another way of saying that the winner of this year's PGA (which might stand for Pretty Grueling Architecture, btw) will be the player who plays steady from tee to green and makes more putts than anybody else. Not that earth-shattering of a revelation, IMHO.
I'll go with Westwood.
-
Ball striking is the most important ingredient to good putting...and Oakland Hills and Oakmont and Augusta all highlight that.
I'm not sure what you mean. Hitting it solid with the putter? Getting it close to the hole with approach shots?
Jason,
On courses with greens like these apparently are, the player that can better place their approach shots will have the most success on the greens. JMO.
-
Ball striking is the most important ingredient to good putting...and Oakland Hills and Oakmont and Augusta all highlight that.
I don't think this gets mentioned nearly enough, and especially not by the journalists-talking heads who show up on TGC on the eve of major championships.
The 58 year old JN didn't manage a 6th place finish at Augusta because he was amongst the best pure putters out there that year; he managed it because his iron play was outstanding, and got his ball to where it needed to be on the greens for him to nab the occasional birdie and avoid the big number.
And that's good enough putting at courses like Augusta, and Oakmont and apparently Oakland Hills.
Peter
-
Ball striking is the most important ingredient to good putting...and Oakland Hills and Oakmont and Augusta all highlight that.
Too true, and yet also too overlooked by most. It seems to me that most good ballstrikers seem to look at contoured greens as goofy golf.
As for the topic at hand, it's an ongoing argument on here, wish I could remember the big thread so anyone who hasn't read it could get a good laugh at how hard we argued this. As far as I recall, Huck, Rich Goodale and JakaB were the main proponents of the view espoused by Mr. Hawkins. Judging by what I've seen and read from Mr. Hawkins, I am more comfortable than ever with our side...
:)
-
The issue is not who is going to make the 30 foot putts - it is a question of who is going to make the most putts inside 5 feet and that is usually the really good putter. Tiger is insanely good inside of 5 feet and Cabrera made far more of those putts than he normally does - he also was able to recover from some very crooked drives. Wildly contoured greens will mean 5 foot putts with substantial break and that is clearly to the advantage of the really good putter.
-
Completely disagree. That's like saying that the course is so hard tee to green that it mitigates the need for ball striking (which it is).
Jon, what do you disagree with? I'm not sure if you're talking about my post, which came right before yours, or someone else's.
-
What is really interesting is that there was another argument (either on TGC or Golf Digest) about the fact that Europeans keep beating US in Ryder Cup because their putters get hot.
And if you remember, US got their butt handed to them at OH.
So, what is it? Did US get their ass kicked because putting matters a bunch in OH or because US putting advantage was neutralized in OH?
I tend to think that wild greens allow good putters to shine.
-
Since observing Oakland Hills / South with each major event played there since the '72 PGA -- I've been personally on hand for several of them -- the only one that was really entertaining was the '79 PGA Champinship in which David Graham demonstrated how NOT to win on the 72nd hole and then proceeded to show how NOT to lose with some of the most incredible putting ever displayed in clutch circumstances.
Kerry Haigh is the key man in making sure that there is adequate balance between the different types of players at this year's PGA.
I'm not a fan of the slog type courses and if the South were left to the devilish whims of the membership it would be akin to what Hogan and company faced when we won there.
-
Here are a few pics my friend (Thanks Jon) took yesterday at Oakland Hills.
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3424.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3427.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3429.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3436.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3439.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3441.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3442.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3454.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3460.jpg)
-
The 3rd from last picture is a prime example of where I think the tournament courses are set up wrong. Sloping fairway right to left. Move the fairway four yards to the left and lcut the fairway so it runs into the bunkers. Let balls that are hooking run into the bunkers. In turn that makes the players shape their shots left to right to hold the fairway.
As it is now, the bunkers are out of play except for a really wild one and these players are generally not too wild. Anyone?
-
Here are a few pics my friend (Thanks Jon) took yesterday at Oakland Hills.
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3424.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3427.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3429.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3436.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3439.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3441.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3442.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3454.jpg)
(http://www.hetzelfamily.org/golf/2008%20PGA/IMG3460.jpg)
OH really is total and complete bunker mayhem. Its such a pity.
Ciao
-
OH really is total and complete bunker mayhem. Its such a pity.
Ciao
How is it any different than Oakmont?
-
Ball striking is the most important ingredient to good putting...and Oakland Hills and Oakmont and Augusta all highlight that.
I'm not sure what you mean. Hitting it solid with the putter? Getting it close to the hole with approach shots?
Jason,
On courses with greens like these apparently are, the player that can better place their approach shots will have the most success on the greens. JMO.
Thanks. Makes sense.
-
I think the guys wrong, you'll struggle here if you can't putt...you'll struggle badly.
-
OH really is total and complete bunker mayhem. Its such a pity.
Ciao
How is it any different than Oakmont?
Jason
I thnk Oakmont looks like bunker hell from the pix. If the greens are that good, I don't understand the need for anything like the number of bunkers Oakmont has, but I have never seen the place and I am not itching to get there. I know OH doesn't need the bunkering. I have played the course many a time only dreamed of what it should be. The land is lovely and the green sites are cleverly chosen. The bones of an awesome course ar e still there.
Ciao
-
Completely disagree. That's like saying that the course is so hard tee to green that it mitigates the need for ball striking (which it is).
Jon, what do you disagree with? I'm not sure if you're talking about my post, which came right before yours, or someone else's.
I was disgreeing with the original post & John Hawkins.
-
John Hawkins, the journalist that has also been doing analysis for TGC, says that to win at Oakland Hills does not require great putting. He claims that the greens are so wildly contoured that it takes the putter out of players hands. Agree or not?
Does anyone who watched the back nine today still believe this?
I said it before and will say it again. There is nothing you can do to a golf course to diminish the value of great putting.
-
John Hawkins, the journalist that has also been doing analysis for TGC, says that to win at Oakland Hills does not require great putting. He claims that the greens are so wildly contoured that it takes the putter out of players hands. Agree or not?
Does anyone who watched the back nine today still believe this?
I said it before and will say it again. There is nothing you can do to a golf course to diminish the value of great putting.
Thank you Matt. I agree. I thought his comments were assanine then and I think so now. How can that guy not lose credibility after that back nine?
-
No, it was won by the best putter of 2008.
-
The outcome doesn't do much for Hawkins' prediction, does it?
The case of Sergio in particular is interesting, inasmuch as the last time I saw him putt really well before The Players', was at this same Oakland Hills in the Ryder Cup. Sergio putted beautifully in that event, as did all the Euros, so much so that I always cited it in discussions of the curious case of Sergio's putting.
OHCC is an exacting test of one's putting stroke and imagination. The greens were NOT overly fast this week. As with Oakmont, the kinds of speeds I saw were on a par with what I have seen in an Invitational there. Not tricked-out. The greens were very dry on Thursday and Friday, mostly because the course had not seen rain in about six days, and Tuesday and Wednesday were in the low 90's and sunny. The rain on Saturday was mostly a return to normalcy. And therefore not overly severe.
The fellow that took David Graham into a playoff, mainly on his own putting skill? Ben Crenshaw.