Disappointment with Shinnecock - for all the wrong reasons!

[George Pazin]

I just got back from a week off (that's why it was so pleasant last week on the site ).

I watched a lot of what I thought was a terrific event at a fantastic venue. I planned on starting a thread when I got back entitled "The lessons of Shinnecock", in which I would question whether anyone would learn anything from the event, which I think offered many valuable lessons (the value of firm and fast in highlighting greaqt architecture, the more random nature of the rough, as opposed to the straightforward hack it out rough at so many other majors, etc.).

And I get back and see GCAers complaining about the over the top setup, comparisons to Carnoustie and comments that the only reason Goosen won was a hot putter (pretty much the main reason anyone wins any event, major or otherwise, IMO).

If GCAers can't appreciate what a wonderful tournament we just witnessed, what hope is there that the rank and file golfer will learn to love firm and fast and great architecture?

I thought the golf, the golf course, and the golf course setup were interesting, exciting, compelling, but most of all, DESIRABLE. Yes, there were some mistakes made, notably on #7, but when you take things to the edge, you will likely have that happen.

My dad was a professor at Pitt's med school for 24 years. He used to tell me that they had to make the tests extra tough, with the average score around 60-65 among highly intelligent, capable and motivated students, to be able to distinguish those handful of special students who would still score highly on such exams (of course, he may have been biased, as he was one of those special students when he went through med school).

IMO Retief and Phil were the special students at this year's test. Shinnecock asked a tremendous amount from all of the players, especially under the USGA's setup, but they still excelled - they just didn't go deep under par. I thought the setup was darn near perfect, and I think perfect is probably unattainable.

I would take this event (or one like last year at Sandwich) any and every weekend of the year, over the normal target golf wedge birdie fest we see the rest of the year.

I thought the course was brutal but fair, for the most part (again, #7 could probably have used just a teeny tiny bit more water and should not have been rolled - but please don't rebuild it, I think any commentator suggesting such should be shot ). Much like Hogan used to say he would only hit a couple of perfect shots a round, I don't think we can reasonably expect the USGA to have every hole absolutely perfect under absolutely every condition.

Well done, Retief. Well done, Phil. Well done, USGA. Please apply the same approach next year and try to encourage everyone else to do the same.

[Tony_Chapman]

Note to all on this board. Read George's post over and over. It couldn't be said any better.

Thanks George!!

[Lou_Duran]

George,

I wonder if a course with so many elevated, fall-away greens as Shinny built by a Nicklaus, Jones, or Fazio in Pittsburgh or Fort Worth be so well received and admired.  Hogan's old course, Shady Oaks (RTJ Sr.) has a few greens up high like Shinny, and it is not very highly regarded primarily for that reason.  Site and location characteristics may be more important than some of us are willing to admit.

In reference to your father's tests, could it be possible that the students who were able to get through the grueling examinations with distinction may not really turn out to be the best doctors?  In other words, does the harshness of the examination necessarily measure and identify the best practitioners/players?

I do think that Goosen is a deserving champion, but greatly question that the USGA's set up of Shinny was good for game.   If Kite shoots 85, I probably couldn't break 110.  What do you think that the average 15 handicapper playing under the rules would score?  How many could actually hole out on 7 or 10 in under double par?  Goofy, in my opinion.

[Bob_Huntley]

George,

A thoughtful response to a difficult question, but your remarks about Sandwich and what went on at Shinnecock on Sunday I find difficult to swallow. I would much rather watch a Formula 1 race than a Demolition Derby, no matter how exciting the latter may be.

[George Pazin]

In reference to your father's tests, could it be possible that the students who were able to get through the grueling examinations with distinction may not really turn out to be the best doctors?  In other words, does the harshness of the examination necessarily measure and identify the best practitioners/players?

This is actually a really interesting question, one that I'm going to have to think about and maybe ask my dad about. I know my dad is the bestest doctor I know and he finished #1 in his med school class! (I'm totally objective and unbiased, as usual, of course .)

I really like the greens perched as though they simply shaved off a bit of the top of a hill - Shinnecock #10 kind of reminds me of Oakmont #3, which is a hole I'd like to see more of on other courses. But maybe I just like weird holes. Sounds like I'll have to check out Shady Oaks if I ever make it back to Texas.

Tony -

Thanks for the kind words. One of the most interesting things about life to me is how people can experience the same exact thing and draw completely different conclusions. One man's compelling is another's goofy. I think this is great and all just leads back to that wise statement about golf being a great big game with room enough in it for everyone (maybe I can draw out Dave Moriarty with that! ).

[Raymond]

It is hard for me to understand what all the complaining is about. Was the course over the top for Phil and Retief? Par was broken by the winner and the runner-up. Phil made 3 birdies out of 4 holes on the final nine. He almost went 4 for 4. Retief put on the most unbelievable putting performance I have ever witnessed. Didn't Allenby shoot even par the last day? For me, this was a most interesting tournament. Everyone that teed off for 72 holes was deemed the best of the best. Almost anyone in the field was capable of shooting the same score as the winner. Where is the unfairness in all of this.The course gave us a thrilling open with two of the world's top ten battling it out for 18 holes. This held much more drama than your average PGA tournament where they shoot 20 under.
Hats off to Shinnecock, The USGA, the maintenace crew, the players, and especially Retief and Phil for showing us how good these guys really are.

[George Pazin]

Bob -

I guess where I'm different is that I didn't view Sandwich or Shinnecock as train wrecks. I thought Carnoustie was a train wreck, which was somewhat evinced by the relatively weak final leaderboard, but at Sandwich and Shinnecock, the cream still rose to the top, for the most part. They didn't show enough of Ernie's play for me to determine whether he played that poorly or he got really unlucky.

I wouldn't have a problem if the course had been set up just a touch easier, but I'd rather error on this side than have it be too much like every other event, all target golf.

Lou -

Maybe it's tradition as much as location. Oakmont has at least a couple greens that are kind of perched up there - #3 & #17 jump to mind - and several fall away greens as well, and it is certainly highly regarded.

[JohnV]

George, well thought out statement.

Lou, the US Open and the setup are not for 15 handicappers so it is moot if they could play the course in double par or not.

The USGA has taken a similar tack with their rules exams which are getting harder and some of the officials are starting to whine about it.  The average score dropped by about 6 points this year in my class.  I'm sure that they felt that it was getting to the point that they couldn't identify the best officials.  As Lou said, a high score doesn't guarantee a good official or doctor, but it will give you a good place to start.

I mentioned that some of the hole locations were my only problem with the setup in another post.  To amplify on that the reason I didn't like them is that a player who did have a bad hole or two had no real chance to get back in the mix because there weren't enough spots where a very good shot could lead to a birdie opportunity.  For example, once Els starting going backwards, he was dead.  There was no way for him to get back in the hunt.  The holes that Phil birdied might have been the only stretch where that was possible and by then most players were history.

[W.H. Cosgrove]

"It's a non-profit organization run by golfers for the benefit of golfers."

This is taken from the USGA website.  Please tell me in what way the set up at Shinnecock benefitted the game of golf.  

In a time when the game is struggling to grow and thrive the USGA set up a great golf course in a way that embarrassed many of today's great players.  Goosen managed to make 11 putts on the back side on Sunday.  What this tells me is that he missed most of the greens and go it up and down a lot. If I were a new golfer I would have been horrified that the game could be so difficult.   Does this benefit golf or golfers?

Television commentators immediately jump to the conclusion that #7 should be rebuilt.  Last I checked this was one of the truly well designed Redan holes in America.  Does it benfit golf when we decide to soften a great hole like #7 as a result of the over the top set up used by the USGA?

USGA officials jump to add water to greens after realizing that greens had gone over the top Sunday morning.  What person who understands anything about grass would have withheld a little water on Saturday night?  Even the TV guys seemed to question that decision on Saturday afternoon.  Does this benefit golf in any way?

I accept that the USGA is trying to identify the best golfer, but question whether their approach to set up does this.  The green pavement approach to green keeping makes luck to much a part of the equation.  

[A_Clay_Man]

George- Objective, to say the least of your analysis. I'm not sure how the mainstream media is spinning this? Bideing their time no doubt, inorder to pounce on the popular.

It was refreshing to see almost every shot, from the players view, had the whispy nastiness over the bunkers edges. While they might not have been in play for these boys, they seemed to be in the line of sight and therefore in the mind, which serves their purpose. Accentuating the many positives that were great to witness, should outwiegh the pettiness of the playability of 7 or 10.

These centerline hazards were a real highlight and a big difference in this years open, for me. But I haven't heard anybody else even mention them. Flynn's adherence to core principles, along with some intensive prunning, showed Shinney to be a classic, in the sense that it has lasted the test of time, even for the best in the world.

Did anyone ever tell Chris Berman that it was not the first golf course ?