Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: ANTHONYPIOPPI on August 11, 2008, 11:26:49 AM
-
If I hadn't heard it myself I'm not sure I would have believed it since every course Peter Kostis broadcasts from is "fantastic," "superb," or some other inappropriate phrase, but I could have sworn Kostis said of Rees's renovation: "He didn't give you much option in the way you can play the golf course." Then later Kostis said something like, "he's taken away a lot of angles Donald Ross intended."
Holy crap, it's almost like he gets it.
Anthony
-
If I hadn't heard it myself I'm not sure I would have believed it since every course Peter Kostis broadcasts from is "fantastic," "superb," or some other inappropriate phrase, but I could have sworn Kostis said of Rees's renovation: "He didn't give you much option in the way you can play the golf course." Then later Kostis said something like, "he's taken away a lot of angles Donald Ross intended."
Holy crap, it's almost like he gets it.
Anthony
Anthony, I was surprised. I heard the same thing.
-
I heard him say it more than once yesterday. He clearly stated that he didn't like the narrowing up of the fairways so that angles of attacks into certain pin positions were compromised. I was impressed!
-
Did Kostis get hit in the head with a shot or something? If he did, I'd like to buy a drink for whoever conked him into his senses.
Anthony
-
As you know though, Ross' angles were taken away long before Rees Jones showed up.
I think his dad may have had something to do with this ;D
-
What was your reaction to 16 - it almost reminded me of a TPC course - bunkers force player to lay back and then play shot over a lake to a tucked pin - I don't know - it just seemed to me that it made for forced errors.
17 on the other hand rewarded the two better players who had the ability to make the really difficult shot.
-
Any idea what #16 looked like originally? I just can't imagine Ross building the hole that way. To me, it was the most un-Rossian hole on the course.
-
Anthony,
I don't think that Rees had anything to do with narrowing the fairways, that's a function of maintainance, not architecture, and it's been pretty much SOP for the Open and PGA for years and years.
-
Dan,
The 16th at Oakland Hills-South is actually one of the least changed holes on the course. It's nearly as Ross designed it today, aside from the tee extension and pond expansion.
And, Mr. Mucci's right. I don't think Rees changed the fairway lines (much, anyway). Again, his dad narrowed the fairways to approx. their present configuration, more than a half century ago now.
-
Pat
That might be but when a course receives accolades that Rees came within 25 miles of he takes the accolades. In this case the criticism falls to him, although the PGA is not within heaps of blame either.
Anthony
-
I heard the same thing from Kostis and realized he must have read Lorne Rubinstein's article previously posted by Brad Klein:
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080809.RUBE09/TPStory/Sports
-
Any thoughts on how the tournament would have played, if they set up Oakland Hills more forgiving, less rough, wider fairways, more angles and options? Scores, winner, etc?
-
Steve,
I'd be surprised if Mr. Kostis reads Canada's national newspaper... but, who knows!
-
When you have bentgrass fairway lines specifically established as a permanent delineation and clearly separate from the bluegrass roughs, and you have a fixed line of bunkers (including new ones) that squeeze the landing areas, then that is a matter of architecture, not maintenance. Oakmont and Baltusrol have done the same thing. The maintenance has to do in this case with turf quality, consistency and heights, but the structural aspects are the responsibility of the architect.
-
Jeff M:
I've seen an old picture of 16 at Oakland Hills where the fairway was far, far wider -- today's fairway would have been the left half of the old fairway, with another 30 yards of fairway running straight into the end of the pond to the right of today's fairway, so you could play down that side to hit across the pond and safely away from the back right of the green. I believe Trent Jones did in that part of the fairway before the '51 Open.
-
Anthony,
Maybe Geoff Ogilvy has been able to successfully indoctrinate someone at Whisper Rock
-
The maintenance has to do in this case with turf quality, consistency and heights, but the structural aspects are the responsibility of the architect.
Brad,
We were together on February 28, 2004 when Baltusrol informed us that they were realigning their fairway/rough lines vis a vis removal of the bent and introduction of wall to wall blue grass, and then, they indicated that they were going to move the bunkers in to match the new fairway/rough lines.
This came on the heels of Oakmont doing the same thing.
Rees was not involved at Oakmont.
The Board of each club must make that decision.
That's NOT a decision left to the architect.
Remember, it cost Baltusrol approximately $ 800,000 just to reconfigure the fairway/rough lines, and that money must be appropriated through club channels, usually, through the finance committee and finally to the board.
Irrespective of any architect's plans and recommendations, ONLY the club, through their operating structure, can make those changes, changes that tend to be permanent, especially in view of the cost to undo them.
So when Rees is criticized for narrowing the rough, one must examine the process, with a historical perspective of Major setups over the last 20 or so years, and with an understanding of the inability of anyone, except the club, to alter the field of play, usually at the request of the USGA and/or PGA.
I can recall the MET Amateur being hosted by Upper Montclair many years ago. Shortly after the MET Am was over, the fairways were cut wider since a PGA Tour event was to be held there the next month. My how times have changed.
Rees can't be held accountable for narrowing a golf course when that's dictated by the USGA and/or PGA and agreed to and financed by the hosting club.
Next he'll be blamed for narrowing ANGC. ;D
-
Pat, you're being ridiculous. I never blamed Rees for Oakmont. I used that course as an example. More importantly, if the architect (such as Rees at Baltusrol and Oakland Hilsl) recommends something else, they make that accommodation or have a discussion. And if the architect disagreed he wouldn't do it or wouldn't keep coming back and associating himself with that course professionally year after year. So for you to try to isolate the board and the members on this is to obscure the role and influence that an architect has, esp, someone with the imprimatur of a Rees Jones or a Tom Fazio.
-
Pat, you're being ridiculous.
I'm rarely ridiculous.
I never blamed Rees for Oakmont.
I never said you did.
I was relating how Baltusrol followed Oakmont in shifting, not only their fairway/rough lines, but their bunkers as well.
There was a common denominator to both courses which I deliberately omitted. You and I know the identity of that denominator.
I used that course as an example.
But, it's more than an example, one is a descendant of the other, and that was what I was refering to.
More importantly, if the architect (such as Rees at Baltusrol and Oakland Hilsl) recommends something else, they make that accommodation or have a discussion.
Isn't it presumptuous to assume that Rees made those recommendations and that the USGA/PGA and club had no part in it ?
And if the architect disagreed he wouldn't do it or wouldn't keep coming back and associating himself with that course professionally year after year.
I disagree.
Opens and PGA's are held in cycles, usually 10-13 year cycles, so I don't see the architect as the driving force in narrowing venues that will host Opens and PGA's once every 10-13 years.
Essentially the decision and results are as follows.
Alter the fairway/rough lines for 4 days out of every 3,652 to 4,748 days for a Major at the expense of the membership for the remaining 3,648 to 4,744 days.
To me, it makes NO SENSE.
I'm for horizontal elasticity, which was used in the old days.
Grow the roughs in, and when the big show leaves town, bring out the gang mowers and restore the fairway/rough lines for the membership.
However, ONCE you move the bunkers in to the new fairway/rough lines, it's almost impossible to embark on a restoration project.
While association with the hosting course is a desirable by-product for business, I don't see the affiliation as one requiring ongoing visits on a scheduled basis.[/b]
So for you to try to isolate the board and the members on this is to obscure the role and influence that an architect has, esp, someone with the imprimatur of a Rees Jones or a Tom Fazio.
It's not an isolation, it's a colaboration.
You would have us believe that the USGA and/or PGA are disinterested parties, mere bystanders.
I don't buy it.
Narrowed fairways are the product of the marriage of the USGA/PGA, the hosting club, TV and lastly, the professional brought in to implement the agreed upon changes in the field.
You can't blame Fazio and/or Rees for changes in the culture of Tournament golf at the highest championship level.
There's a consortium that's responsible.
And, at the epicenter of the consortium is the ONLY party with the ultimate veto, the club/board.
You can't spend $ 800,000 to realign the fairway/rough lines without authorization and funding, and the only entity that can implement that change is the club/board, not the architect.
-
Sorry, Pat, but when you have bentgrass fairways and bluegrass roughs the fairway lines are permanent. That's the obvious example of Oakmont last year, as clear as day.
-
Pat:
I have known of only one club which had the confidence to tell either the PGA or the USGA that they didn't think they needed to make significant changes in preparation of an upcoming championship. That was Shinnecock Hills. They put in a couple of tees for the last Open, but no more.
I do not think it is a coincidence that they managed to resist further change because they are the only one of these clubs which DID NOT have a consulting architect on board ready to take bows for his surgery to their course.
I just don't understand why everyone assumes these courses constantly need updating. If they hadn't lengthened and tightened Oakland Hills this time, would the wrong guy have won? And how different would the winning score have been? My best guess is that it would have been 2-3 shots lower over 72 holes. Why does anyone care about 2-3 strokes??
I care because four times per year, on national TV, every other club in America is being not-so-subtly told that they need to lengthen their course, too. It's a bad message to be sending.
-
Pat:
I have known of only one club which had the confidence to tell either the PGA or the USGA that they didn't think they needed to make significant changes in preparation of an upcoming championship. That was Shinnecock Hills. They put in a couple of tees for the last Open, but no more.
Tom,
I give SH a lot of credit for that.
They were also the first club where the USGA leased the facility for a fee.
I think more clubs are deciding that they don't want to change their course and inconvenience their members, temporarily or permanently, and are therefore rejecting the opportunity to host a Major.
I do not think it is a coincidence that they managed to resist further change because they are the only one of these clubs which DID NOT have a consulting architect on board ready to take bows for his surgery to their course.
Shinnecock had and probably continues to have a unique culture.
I don't think change comes quickly to SH, either in the form of alteration or restoration.
Being content with what you have is a wonderful attribute, and, as you stated, few clubs have that confidence.
I just don't understand why everyone assumes these courses constantly need updating.
I see it in the context that the ball goes too far.
JB Holmels hit 9 of 14 fairways one day, averaging 330 yards.
In hosting a championship, a Major, how do you defend against that without adding length ?
I've been an advocate of a competition ball, reducing the size of the clubface, etc., etc.. but, I haven't made much of an impression on the powers that be.
The hosting organizations (USGA & PGA) and TV don't want Majors turning into the "Desert Tour" gone East where 24 under wins by 1, with the entire cut 14 under.
Had the I&B been better regulated this problem wouldn't exist.
I'm still hoping that Augusta will come out with a "tournament" ball that the USGA will adopt for its events.
If they hadn't lengthened and tightened Oakland Hills this time, would the wrong guy have won?
I don't know if there is a "wrong" guy, but, a different guy probably would have won.
For Majors, most, including the sponsoring organizations want par to be a challenge. They don't want the "Desert Open" East results.
And how different would the winning score have been? My best guess is that it would have been 2-3 shots lower over 72 holes. Why does anyone care about 2-3 strokes??
I don't think anyone cares about 2-3 strokes.
I do think that they care abour 12-13 or 22-23 strokes, ala the "Desert Opens"
I care because four times per year, on national TV, every other club in America is being not-so-subtly told that they need to lengthen their course, too. It's a bad message to be sending.
I agree.
And, despite the lengthening, they're not long enough to challenge many of these guys. Didn't someone just hit a driver - six iron into a 600+ yard par 5 ? The failure to regulate the equipment has produced the distance race that's resulted in longer and longer golf courses.
-
Sorry, Pat, but when you have bentgrass fairways and bluegrass roughs the fairway lines are permanent.
Brad,
I stated that.
That's what cost Baltusrol $ 800,000
That's the obvious example of Oakmont last year, as clear as day.
Agreed.
Aided and abetted by moving the bunkers in to match the rough lines.
Brad,
I stated that.
That's what cost Baltusrol $ 800,000
-
Tom Doak is exactly right about the old sweep of the fairway OHCC #16.
And, I want to assure everyone, beyond any question, that the new narrowed fairways were done as a matter of design, including the stripping out of bentgrass and addition of bluegrass rough. It was done on the basis of carefully lined-out marks laing down by Rees & Co. It was no accident, not a long period of inattention, not careless mowing. Nothing of the sort. They began the latest work the summer immediately after the Ryder Cup. I had the pleasure and the illuminating experience of seeing the extent of the narrowing first hand, while playing the South Course and seeing all the yellow lines laid out for the sod cutters and the mowers.
I agree wholeheartedly with Brad Klein; if you view it as a legitimate task to update a classic golf course to pose a competitive challenge to tour players, you will end up doing the kinds of things generally done by Rees Jones at OHCC. Most of them, I don't care for, simply because I don't like the original task; altering the golf courses, instead of the obvious solution of altering golf ball specs. But with the current equipment technology as a given, I think what Rees Jones did was in rather good taste. As I have posted before, what he did to #7 was a huge improvement. What he did to #15 was a terrible disaster, I think. But beyond any question, what he did was what was mandated by the equipment technology. For the most part, Rees Jones wasn't improving OHCC; he was altering it, for a different kind of game. Not only not "better," but arguably "worse," as Lorne Rubenstein accurately described and as Peter Kostis repeated for a national tv audience.
At Geoff Shackelford's website, I wrote that Titleist-consulstant-Peter Kostis' complaining about the subject of narrowed fairways and enhanced rough elimnating thoughtful angles, is like Tony Soprano complaining about a rising crime rate.
-
When JB Holmes hit 9 of 14 fairways and averaged 330 yards, the key is that he did it for ONE day. Had he been able to do that over four days, he would have deserved to win, assuming his putter was average at best. There's no reason why a course should be expected to defend itself against a superhuman performance like that. But he didn't do it over four days, and the same driver that produced those 330-yard drives also destroyed his PGA chances by bombing his ball deep into the trees off the first tee on Sunday.
-
Chuck Brown,
Tony Soprano only objects to an increase in non-organized crime.
As to Rees Jones and Oakland Hills, would the finished product have been any different regardless of which consulting architect was selected ?
Dan Callahan,
How quickly you forgot John Daly at Crooked Stick and TOC.
Had JB Holmes maintained his demeanor, the headlines would have been how he tamed the monster.
It's only a matter of time before it's Daly deja vu all over again.
-
Patrick:
I think we agree on this more than you want to admit.
I remember that Davis Love was asked prior to the last Open at Oakland Hills whether he would try to drive past the pinching bunkers or lay up short of them and he replied that he hadn't given the bunkers much thought, because better in them than in the rough.
On some of the holes at Oakland Hills, there were two new bunkers on each side of the fairway further downrange, and yet Mr. Holmes often flew past all of them.
Do you really think adding 300 yards to the championship course and adding a few fairway bunkers meant a three-shot difference per round? If it does, then the USGA course rating system is all incorrect -- according to them, 220 yards = 1 shot, and that's for a scratch golfer, not a plus-seven Tour pro.
Most of all, you are right that "the sponsoring organizations want par to be a challenge." That is the whole problem in a nutshell. They are too caught up in a standard that died forty years ago. Pros aren't scratch players, they are plus-seven ... to try to hold them to the antiquated par figures of 50 years ago is silly.
-
Tom Doak,
I think we're close to agreeing on this subject.
However you can't look at the addition of 300 yards and the introduction of new bunkers without factoring in "narrowing" and deep penal rough.
I was shocked at how good Harrington's lie was on # 18.
Then I thought, perhaps his lie was good because he was so far removed from the DZ and noone really gave any thought to the rough in that location because they were so focused on the normal DZ.
A National Championship conotes a test of a higher degree, not that of a typical tour stop.
But, I don't know how you conduct a thorough examination of the field's game without length.
I&B have made length a necessity in the minds of the sponsoring organizations, the clubs, their memberships, TV and the viewers.
I was friendly with a number of individuals at various clubs who were in charge at their club when a major was hosted. Everyone of them, along with a large portion of their memberships, didn't want their golf course to be "embarrassed" by low scoring. They wanted it as tough as possible.
I think the culture of "Major" golf is focused on par.
The hosting club, their members, TV, their viewers and the sponsoring organization are all consumed by the issue, and with the distance the ball travels, distance is perceived as the # 1 defense.
I have grave concerns when clubs like NGLA host a prominent tournament because I fear that any changes may become permanent, especially the narrowing of the fairways, which seems to be universal these days.
Has there been any discussion regarding alterations to Sebonack, including narrowing the fairways ? And, if the fairways are intended to be narrowed, will they be returned after the big show leaves town ?
Newport and others have yet to restore their fairway widths.
I wonder if Prairie Dunes has restored theirs ?
-
By the way, Tom Doak was interviewed on XM146 yesterday morning. He spent some time explaining the differences between designing for TOUR pros versus designing for club/resort golfers. It was a great interview. Doak also praised Oakland Hills, and rightfully so.
-
Prairie Dunes has not restored their fairways yet.
-
This will probably sound "off the wall" -- and definitely impossible -- to many, but Oakland Hills would have been more interesting if they removed all the bunkers, cut all the trees down, and mowed the entire property fairway height. Especially with the high winds there over the weekend, and the impressive firmness of the approaches into the greens.
Narrow fairways and the addition of bunkers further down range off the tees only makes the course more monotonous and plain difficult, in my opinion. I'm more interested in seeing an array of interesting shots than keeping the winner somewhere around par.
-
Jeff Mingay,
I don't disagree with you in principle, but, how do you test the best golfers in the world for a National Championship ?
And, can you consistently count on the wind when you need it at Oakland Hills ?
-
Is decent fairway width a key to good strategic design? I think it's interesting that we're talking about this at Oakland Hills - we've been clamoring for a return to the "no rough" ANGC for a few years now. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
-
Pat,
I'm getting so tired of these contrived championship set-ups -- new tees, moving bunkers, narrowing fairways, RAKING ROUGH, mowing fairways with green mowers, etc. etc. -- I start thinking: Just let the guys play golf. The lowest score wins no matter where they play, nor what the set-up.
Maybe I'm simplifying things a bit too much, but... hey, isn't this golf? Tee it up, lowest score wins.
Why do the powers-that-be these days consistently feel it's their obligation to make it really, really difficult for the best players? Perhaps, in part, it stems from the fact the powers-that-be stopped effectively regulating playing equipment a number of years ago... and, the only way to maintain any somewhat sensible relationship between the accomplishments of Hagen, Hogan, Nicklaus and Woods is to do what they're doing with golf courses pegged to host major championships these days.
It's goofy.
I'm hoping Mike Davis continues to be innovative. He could single-handedly change the tide.
-
Jeff Mingay,
Let me give you my REAL take on this.
It's a next to impossible problem and task.
The solution to which is similar to that evidenced by Madison Square Garden and other arenas when they have a hockey game in the afternoon and a basketball game in the evening.
Two seperate playing surfaces must be specifically prepared.
That entails destroying one and creating another.
Today, too often the vestiges of USGA/PGA events remain long after the site has been abandoned by the competitors.
-
All these cliches about "testing the best players in the world" start to wear on me. Any good course will do that. It doesn't need a ridiculous set-up.
Pat, I don't agree that length needs to be a factor in testing great play. If it did, then the USGA was really negligent in its equipment regulation, because that horse left the barn about 15 years ago. None of these courses count as "long" for a PGA Tour pro with modern equipment, in the same context "long" has for you and me. That doesn't mean you can't find a course which makes the players play smart golf and control their ball and tests their ability to get the ball in the hole, and isn't that the real definition of a champion?
I still believe it is the stupid attachment to par that is the ruination of tournament set-ups and "championship" architecture.
And here's my defense: how were you enjoying this PGA before it rained, when nobody could break par? Was it interesting to watch? Was it identifying the best players? Seems to me it only got interesting once it rained a bit to soften the set-up so the best players could show you what they had -- and then it got really exciting. If any of the members at Oakland Hills are embarrassed about how Padraig Harrington played the course the last 27 holes, they are really missing the point.
-
I'm in total agree with Tom Doak's post above.
Oakland Hills didn't play long, except for Corey Pavin and a few others. Garcia was drive/9-iron to the par-5 second, Sunday. Holmes hit drive/sand iron to ten. I saw some amazingly long tee shots Thursday and Sunday, while I was at the tournament. Scary long.
I also saw Pavin hit a calculated hook off the tee at eighteen, followed by a faded driver off the deck into the green to about 20-feet from the hole, Thursday. His second there is undoubtedly one of the greatest golf shots I've ever seen, live. Amazing. I want to see shots like this, and birdies as well as the occasional eagle.
With the majority of a golf property covered with long grass, we don't see as many truly great shots. Period.
-
It's like a baseball game played with 5" grass in the infield and outfield. B O R I N G!
-
I cannot think of another sport where the playing field is changed for championship events. The new baseball parks don't have deeper outfields, the basket hasn't been raised although the players are clearly bigger, same thing for football.
The fact is that the equipment changes have only been signifcant in tennis yet they still use the same size court. Baseball did see some changes such as raising the pitcher's mound but they went back to the old height. There were many questions about the ball but it seems that it was the players who were juiced and not the ball. The most obvious difference between baseball and golf is the bat versus the club. Baseball at the top levels of the game could have allowed changes in materials or hollowing of the bat but they decided against it - why - BECAUSE THOSE WHO REGULATE THE GAME OWN THE PLAYING FIELDS. That is not the case in golf as far as the championship venues. So the PGA Tour, the PGA and the USGA don't have a financial or other interest in the courses. The only exception is the Masters and they are the most likely to take the lead in equipment changes. Of course, it would be very difficult for them to change the ball and deal with the manufacturers. But would it be that difficult for them to regulate the drivers - steel shafts are readily available and there are manufacturers still making persimmon heads. Sure, the players could say no or the manufacturers could pressure the players, but I would bet on the moguls who are members of ANGC to prevail.
-
CBS had a half hour special before Sunday's telecast in which they twice said Trent Jones Jr. was the ORIGINAL ARCHITECT of Oakland Hills.
-
Tom - Yes, the USGA was really negligent with equipment regulations, and yes that horse did leave the barn.
Now, I think that horse is not only out of the barn, that particular horse is wandering around causing a lot of damage.
Let's face it, we wouldn't be talking about extremes in course alteration if the USGA had regulated golf ball performance more rigorously. Sure, there might have been some tee movement; there might have been some bunker movement. Trent Jones was doing that to OHCC in the nineteen fifties.
I share everyone's general objections to much of what was done to OHCC. But as I understand it, Tom agrees that given the task of making the course a major-championship test, what Rees Jones did was well within reason. This architectural evil isn't Rees Jones' doing; it is almost purely a function of equipment.
By the way, we should keep in mind that Steve Cook, OHCC's superintendent has heard all of the criticism of the course, which is painful for him after having been basically told what to do on most of the issues of controversy. As I understand it, Kerry Haigh came to Steve at 4:00 am on Saturday and directed some changes, in deirect response to complaints. Steve complied. As I understand it, mowers were sent out to make additional cuts to the rough not once, but twice. They ended up using the far-back tees on 9 and 17 just one day apiece. With one or two exceptions, the hole locations were ones that members might expect to see on ordinary days. They never once used the farthest-back tee positions on 6, or 11, and perhaps most important, they used an "up" tee position on 18. Oakland Hills could have been set up much harder than it was. I take no pleasure in that notion; just to say that these things were the subject of conscious tinkering, by the PGA of America.
-
Tony:
Good to see that Kostis gets "something" about architecture. Now if he would only advance the program with better interviews of the players (see Sergio as case #1). ;D
-
How quickly you forgot John Daly at Crooked Stick and TOC.
Had JB Holmes maintained his demeanor, the headlines would have been how he tamed the monster.
It's only a matter of time before it's Daly deja vu all over again.
What is wrong with Daly all over again? Isn't driving a part of the game? Why should course setup be dictated by trying to reign in a great driver of the golf ball? In my opinion, if someone like Daly can put together four exceptional rounds of driving, assuming his short game is okay, SHOULD win. In the same way that a guy who has four unbelievable rounds putting, like Goosen at the U.S. Open, should win. We don't see greens that are tricked up to try to penalize a great putter. Why should courses be tricked up simply to impact the long hitters?
Maybe golf should follow the lead of MMA, which all began by a group of people wondering who would win in a fight: a boxer, wrestler, black belt, etc. The only way to find out is to put them into a ring with a uniform set of rules and let them duke it out.
I don't see why golf should be any different. Put the best players in the world on a golf course that isn't artificially rigged to penalize one skill. Let them all play, and we'll find out which skill predominates.
-
Jeff Mingay,
I don't disagree with you in principle, but, how do you test the best golfers in the world for a National Championship ?
And, can you consistently count on the wind when you need it at Oakland Hills ?
You go to the tournament ball. A ball that when spanked by JB goes a max of 280 yards. How easy is that?
No more knee high rough. No need to pinch in fairways and no more need to extend already great courses. Done.
-
Tom D:
Amen on the good timing of the H20 to hit Oakland Hills / South. The first two rounds were truly boring to watch as it was nothing more than a golf course overpowering the field.
The rain -- and the considerable thought of Kerry Haigh to place tee markers ahead of where they were previously -- see the 17th, as just one example, permitted the best players to show what they do.
Oakland Hills / South doesn't need to be helped with the overkill in narrow fairways and the like. The sad part is that too many events are now following the same pattern over and over again.
-
This infection spreads from members of the host club, who feel embarrassed if scores are low, and want to demonstrate how "tough" their course is, to the media, for whom greatness means difficulty, to even folks on this site, who extolled how well Winged Foot, Oakmont, Bethpage, etc. "held up" to the best players in the world. Is Oakmont that much better a golf course after the last open than it was after Larry Nelson "torched" the place in the last two rounds 1980s, or a whole bunch of folks broke par when Ernie Els won in 1994, or when Jonny Miller won in 1973? And is there any reason for the latest changes to Bethpage beyond making sure no one shoots low? Many have stated how glad they are that the Open is going back to Merion, but what kind of Merion did we see during the Amateur, with rough up to everyone's ass, and what kind will we see if the fairways are narrowed even more, green speeds are at 20 and the rough is 8 feet high, all to ensure that the course "holds up"?
-
This infection spreads from members of the host club, who feel embarrassed if scores are low, and want to demonstrate how "tough" their course is, to the media, for whom greatness means difficulty, to even folks on this site, who extolled how well Winged Foot, Oakmont, Bethpage, etc. "held up" to the best players in the world. Is Oakmont that much better a golf course after the last open than it was after Larry Nelson "torched" the place in the last two rounds 1980s, or a whole bunch of folks broke par when Ernie Els won in 1994, or when Jonny Miller won in 1973? And is there any reason for the latest changes to Bethpage beyond making sure no one shoots low? Many have stated how glad they are that the Open is going back to Merion, but what kind of Merion did we see during the Amateur, with rough up to everyone's ass, and what kind will we see if the fairways are narrowed even more, green speeds are at 20 and the rough is 8 feet high, all to ensure that the course "holds up"?
Jeff
I agree with you. Ultimately, the membership is responsible for their course(s). Its hard to believe that all these clubs that have monstered up for events has nothing to do with the membership. There is no question that most folks use the term "challenge" to really mean difficulty - even for many on this site. Can't a course be demanding and require thoughtful execution without being crazy difficult? I am afraid it is our obsession with par which gets us into such a mess. I think once folks lose this idea of par as a measuring stick and concentrate on what is good golf the game will be much better off. The idea is especially insane for the pros. There are very, very few tournies these days where a pro shooting par will win. The kicker is, of those tournies, most are boring to watch and are met with derision by a significant number of pros. I think its time we all accept that the experiment with attempting to force a winning score by altering the setup and architecture of what in many cases are great courses has utterly failed.
Ciao
-
Jeff:
Weren't you one of the main driving forces behind turning Olympia Fields South into a much tougher course, or am I confusing you with someone else?
Kelly:
The Open set-up at Birkdale was just as bad or worse. With all of the crosswind holes there, the fairways were impossibly narrow. I don't know that the set-up should have anticipated steady 30-mph winds the whole week, but it did seem that they were too busy defending par in possible calm conditions, and it's not like the wind never blows off the Irish Sea.
-
Jeff:
Weren't you one of the main driving forces behind turning Olympia Fields South into a much tougher course, or am I confusing you with someone else?
Kelly:
The Open set-up at Birkdale was just as bad or worse. With all of the crosswind holes there, the fairways were impossibly narrow. I don't know that the set-up should have anticipated steady 30-mph winds the whole week, but it did seem that they were too busy defending par in possible calm conditions, and it's not like the wind never blows off the Irish Sea.
Tom D
I disagree with you concerning Birkdale. On the weekend the setup was fine, nothing I would call great, but I think that has more to do with the architecture then the setup.
The idea of loads of crosswind shots is a much more interesting comment. I spose more up n' over design would have been necessary to eliminate some of the cross wind holes - which I think would have been a great idea. One problem with following the valley floors between dunes is that if the valley isn't terribly wide it is awfully hard to create the width with the mower. Not many clubs are likely to cut significantly up the banks to nurture tee shots back into play or at least make the ball findable. To a lesser degree Burnham has some of the same difficulty with wind and width between the dunes. Of course, all this pre-supposses that wind will blow in these areas. IMO its a very good assumption even if a critically difficult wind only appears once a month the architecture should allow for it. Unfortunately, most memberships of links are of the opinion that their courses need to be made tougher - hence there is little attempt to widen fairway corridors.
I wonder how many archies out there would look at a lovely corridor between the dunes that was 30 yards wide and think that isn't enough room for a prevailing cross wind that at times blows over 30 mph. There is a lot to be said for the course which limit the number of cross wind holes in favour of more down/up wind holes.
Ciao
-
What WILL happen to Chambers Bay? Can any course keep it's integrity under the onslaught of the Major?
Doug
-
Sean:
I don't remember Birkdale all that well, as it's been quite a long time since I was there, but it didn't seem that they were mowing the whole valley on several of the holes. The hole which I found most confounding was #6 ... even when they moved the tee up, guys would drive it past / over the bunker on the right only to watch it go into deep rough on the left (often on the flat) ... it seemed like the only play the set-up allowed was to lay up right to the corner, leaving you 240 to the green.
-
This will probably sound "off the wall" -- and definitely impossible -- to many, but Oakland Hills would have been more interesting if they removed all the bunkers, cut all the trees down, and mowed the entire property fairway height. Especially with the high winds there over the weekend, and the impressive firmness of the approaches into the greens.
Sounds like what I've been saying about Oakmont. :)
-
Jeff:
Weren't you one of the main driving forces behind turning Olympia Fields South into a much tougher course, or am I confusing you with someone else?
Tom,
Not from the White Tees. ;D Come out and take a look.
As for putting in a set of Brigadoon tees (which we did), who cares? Steve and Patrick didn't screw with any greens or holes to put them in, and we've got a lot of good players who use them (more than once every 100 years).
Jeff
-
Kostis just went off again on the Wyndham telecast!
First he posed the question of whether Ross would design courses the same way today, followed by a good discussion.
Then the discussion turned to Pinehurst. He referenced that the USGA "destroyed" the setup during the 2005 US Open, as many of the ideal angles and landing areas were covered in "2 feet of rough".
Finally he suggested that very often on a Donald Ross course, the worst place you can be is the middle of the fairway - except that's all that there is now because the fairways have been narrowed to 20 or 25 yards.
Interesting!
-
Geeze, you guys cared about this last week...
;D
-
What happened to Peter Kostis? He used to be Titleist's mouthpiece -- 'There's nothing wrong with the ball; it's just that players are so much better, we need to give them harder courses to play...'
Where is he getting this new insight from? Is he no longer working for Titleist?
-
Gentlemen,
Please don't fall into the notion that Peter Kostis "gets it".
I know many of you don't cotton to Rees' work but if you start siding with Kostis or any of those other wannabees on architecture, you're making a mistake.
Rees has forgotten more about golf architecture than most of the talking heads will ever know. Of this I am sure. Knowing a little about both of them, Kostis could not fill a thimble with his knowledge of architecture.
Lester