[Mike_Young]

Again, it is proven that the only way to keep the pros from scoring is keeping their approach shots from getting close to the hole.  Distance will not change that.  It could be 8000 yards.  Tournament ball won't stop that.  These guys are good.  Set it up fair and let them play.  
IMHO I think one thing that would be fair would be increase in bunker depth and lack of grooming.  But you could not bring the depth back up for membership.  If you note many guys were aiming for bunkers.  I think bunker on 17 on Sunday was intentional by Mickelson and others.  
I think fairway width was unfair only because of lateral ground movement at the height they were cut. And if fairways were wider then angles would come back into play and bunker carries over deeper unkept hazards would be more critical.  Just more opinions.  

[Willie_Dow]

David Tepper - I think?

I liked your analysis of golf vs squash!  In the olden games they were the greatest for a social good time among men.

A bottle on the table after a match.  And a lengthly conversation about nothing, but it was really something!

Bamboo rackets and the hard ball were the thing.  Then came the implements: like the new breed at USGA - gotta upgrade this dismal game -for some- obviously the new comma who new nothing about squash - or golf.

New implements - new balls - new obstacles. cleaner and raked bunkers - this equalled new courts for squash at umptine dollars to accomodate the racquet and ball - and the architecture to accomodate the same on the links.

Thanks for your input!

Willie

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

It's not so simple.

Bunker depth can only be created where drainage is possible.

Did # 17 play so much different on Sunday then Saturday ?

With a one shot lead in the tournament, that bunker would not be the location of preference for me, especially with a
six (6) iron in my hand.

In no way did he intend to hit into that bunker, that would be like playing Russian Roulette.  A fried egg would have ended the tournament.

[Ken Fry]

Pat,

I'm late replying but par is the standard for nothing.  You approach a hole.  The yardage says 495 yards.  How much does your perspective change if this hole is a par 4 or a par 5?  It shouldn't at all!!  Get the ball in the hole in the least amount of strokes.

Do I want to return to the true origins of the game (one club length from the hole, a tee made with a pinch of sand and water, etc.), no.  The point is, in a medal play tournament, who cares where you end up in relation to par?  As long as you've taken the least amount of strokes, it doesn't matter.

The only purpose par serves in the modern professional game is to gauge how well the field is doing in relation to each other.  When a tournament is over, the aggregate total score is posted, not how many over par or under par a player is.

If the USGA wants to make a course tremendously hard, so be it.  They've been notorious for changing par 5 holes into par 4's for years.  Bethpage gave us the 500 yard par 4.  Who cares?  Like all the arguements thus far supporting how the USGA set up Shinnecock, the course is set up the same for all players.  Get the ball in each of the holes in the fewest amount of strokes and be done with it!

[Bill_McBride]

Good point about the length of the holes being irrelevant.  From watching Saturday and Sunday, I thought the 1st hole was in the 310 range -- it's apparently 393.  This misbelief based on the number of short pitches played into it, few of which stayed on the green.  Ditto for #18 -- it's apparently 450 but there were some lob wedges hit into it.  So the yardage was almost 7000 on the card but effectively 6200, but impossible to hit most of the greens close to the pins.  This is a great way to combat future growth in distance.  (Does anyone think Titleist etc are through souping up the ball?)

[Mike_Young]

Pat,
I feel comfortable he did mean to hit it in the bunker with that pin location.  It may not have been the shot on Sat. but over the green was not either and so his place to miss it was the bunker.  
Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Young,

You can't come into the 71st hole of the US Open with a one shot lead or tied for the lead, have a six iron in your hand, and think that you want to hit it into the bunker.

One only has to look at what happened to Goosen's lie in the front bunker on # 14.

While there may be a "prefered" side to miss it, a PGA Tour player ranked in the top 10, with a six iron in his hand, with a one shot lead has to be thinking that he's got to hit the green to win the tournament or preserve his lead.

There are too many unknowns associated with hitting it in a bunker, and while that strategy may have been discussed with # 7, it's not the strategy of prudence on the 71st hole of the US Open with a one shot lead and a six iron in your hand.

Players on saturday were going a little over the green and the announcers were saying that it's a pretty good play.
I realize the difference in the hole locations between saturday and sunday, but he had room long considering the location of the hole.

KFry,

How much, serious, competitive golf have you played, and at what level ?

Any idiot can declare that the lowest score after 72 holes wins, but one does not manage his game in advance of playing a hole, or 72 holes.  Micro management is introduced on the first tee, on a shot by shot, hole by hole basis, and trust me, PAR is an important number/standard.

Even in match play, it is relevant, you still have to play the hole, not the man.  Perhaps you were thinking of hockey, where you play the man and not the puck.

[Ken Fry]

Pat,

Where and what level I've played is irrelevant.  My stregnths on a golf course will vary from another player's.

David Toms on #18 at AAC in the PGA has a hanging lie from 220 to an island green.  It's a par 4 so his strategy, by your recommendation, would be to go for the green like you're suppose to on a par 4.  He managed his game knowing his strengths and got the ball down in the least amount of strokes required.

When I stand on a tee, I could give two shakes what the par is.  What's my best option to score the best I can on that particular hole?  If I stand on a 575 yard hole I don't care if it says par 4 or par 5.  If I see an opening and a a chance to make 3, I take it.  Does that choice get dictated by an arbitrary number on a card?

And for a traditionalist such as yourself, you know getting on a course playing in gale winds (like many British Open courses) par means very little.  Some 400 yard holes are reachable in 1, some 350 yard holes won't be reachable in 2.  So what's par have to do with it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

KFry

Where and what level I've played is irrelevant.

No, it's very relevant, it gives one a frame of reference regarding your position.[/color]  

My stregnths on a golf course will vary from another player's.

That's true of everybody on the planet, and a dodge to the question.[/color]

David Toms on #18 at AAC in the PGA has a hanging lie from 220 to an island green.  It's a par 4 so his strategy, by your recommendation, would be to go for the green like you're suppose to on a par 4.

How do you know what my strategy would be at any particular moment on the golf course ?[/color]

He managed his game knowing his strengths and got the ball down in the least amount of strokes required.

He only managed his game in the context of his position to par and his opponents position to par.  The relationship to par between the competitors determined his play on that particular shot, because he knew of everyone's relation to par.
But, at an amateur event, absent tote boards, one has no basis for immediate comparison to the rest of the field, hence your relationship to par becomes and important factor.
To think otherwise would indicate that you haven't played competitive golf at a high level.[/color]

When I stand on a tee, I could give two shakes what the par is.  What's my best option to score the best I can on that particular hole?  If I stand on a 575 yard hole I don't care if it says par 4 or par 5.  If I see an opening and a a chance to make 3, I take it.

Balogna, or Baloney.
If you're in a competitive tournament par is a consideration when evaluating risk/reward and the shot at hand.
Now, if score doesn't mean anything to you, I can understand your point of view.

But, to take this out of the realm of theory, and  into reality,
let me know what your handicap is, then let's bet on your ability to shoot your handicap on your next round.  If you're a
6 handicap on your home course, and par is 72, 78 would be a push, 77 or lower you win, 79 or higher and I win.
Name your price, and we'll see how relevant par becomes to you.[/color]

Does that choice get dictated by an arbitrary number on a card?

The number is far from arbitrary.

How is your handicap determined ?

Is it in relationship to PAR ?[/color]

And for a traditionalist such as yourself, you know getting on a course playing in gale winds (like many British Open courses) par means very little.  Some 400 yard holes are reachable in 1, some 350 yard holes won't be reachable in 2.  So what's par have to do with it?

Why not use a more practical example, like playing in a tornado ?  The use of extremes to make your point, invalidates your point.

Like I said, let's take this from the realm of theory into the proving ground of reality, and see how your mindset changes.[/color]

[Ken Fry]

Patrick,

Some direct answers to your questions:

My handicap is 0

Yes, I have played in many tournaments.  I'm playing against other players, not par.

The USGA would love to hear your stance on handicaps and par since NEITHER is a factor of the other.  Your handicap is determined by a course's slope and course rating, NEITHER of which are determined by par.  The only time par is a factor is in determining the handicap for a each of a course's holes.  That just tells you if you get strokes, where they would fall.  There is NO use of par in determining your handicap.

Why would any risk/reward decision be dictated by par?  The risk is getting penalty strokes and a higher score.  The reward is getting a lower score.  Sounds pretty simple without par!

Maybe you should open your mind to the possibility that "par" isn't as important as you think.  I don't care if my 68 is 4 under par or 2 under par.

We're talking in reality and it's clear you're not as sure of yourself on the FACTS.

[Patrick_Mucci]

My handicap is 0.

That's terrific, the product of talent, hard work on the practice tee, course management and playing skills.[/color]

Yes, I have played in many tournaments.  I'm playing against other players, not par.
How do you know, during the play of the round, how you're doing against them ?[/color]

The USGA would love to hear your stance on handicaps and par since NEITHER is a factor of the other.  Your handicap is determined by a course's slope and course rating, NEITHER of which are determined by par.

I'm well aware of that, but, at your home course, the slope, par and your handicap are interrelated, my offer on the bet stands, talk it cheap, let's put a wager into play.[/color]  

The only time par is a factor is in determining the handicap for a each of a course's holes.  That just tells you if you get strokes, where they would fall.  There is NO use of par in determining your handicap.

At your home course, it's all interrelated.  My offer remains open for the taking.

What's the name of your home course ?[/color]

Why would any risk/reward decision be dictated by par?  The risk is getting penalty strokes and a higher score.  The reward is getting a lower score.  Sounds pretty simple without par!

Maybe you should open your mind to the possibility that "par" isn't as important as you think.  I don't care if my 68 is 4 under par or 2 under par.

I do, I'd rather be 4 under par then 2 under par every day of the week.[/color]

We're talking in reality and it's clear you're not as sure of yourself on the FACTS.

I'm so sure of my facts that my offer remains open for the taking.  You shoot par at your course, we push, you shoot below par and you win, you shoot above par and I win.
We can even have a side bet on par on a hole by hole basis.[/color]

[Ken Fry]

OK Pat.  Our par is 75.

[Patrick_Mucci]

KFry,

You're trying to hedge your bet.

I heard that par was 69, just like Wannamoisett.  

[Peter_Collins]

By Sunday afternoon the players in contention (Goosen & Lefty) were both hitting three wood or an iron off every tee.  Wouldn't a tournament ball reducing length 20% simply put the driver back in their hand?

One thing I haven't heard much discussion of is change in the game due to the physical and psychological conditioning of the modern player.  This is hardly something the USGA can reign in, they can't hardly prevent players from using vastly improved physical fitness regimens and psychological conditioning.  

[Ken Fry]

I do live close to the Warren Course at Notre Dame that has no par.....

[David_Tepper]

I just had a chance to review the US Open stats in the 6/25 issue of GolfWorld received in today's mail.

The evidence of just how badly the USGA butchered the course set-up on Sunday is even more overwhelming than I thought. Out of 66 players, there were 28 scores of 80 of higher. That is 42%+ of the field.

Of those 28 rounds, 11 were posted by players currently ranked in the top 50 in the world.

Now, it is fashionable in certain certain circles to dismiss modern players and say that they are "one dimensional," they don't know how to "work the ball," the don't have any "imagination," "all they know is how to hit a lob wedge," etc.

Ernie Els, Scott Verplank, Billy Mayfair and Tom Kite have all won USGA Championships and all shot 80+. Does anyone think their golf games can be described as above?

Scott Verplank is quoted as saying, "All the things I practiced my whole life didn't matter here. Because my whole life I practiced golf." Amen to that!

Finally, to tie this in to the golden age of GCA, Sunday at the US Open reminds me of an Alastair Mackenzie quote. When an overly proud member told the good doctor that his home club's course was so tough that no one had ever broken par there, Mackenzie replied, "Good heavens, what's wrong with it!" Double amen!!!        

[George Pazin]

Scott Verplank is quoted as saying, "All the things I practiced my whole life didn't matter here. Because my whole life I practiced golf." Amen to that!

Maybe Scott Verplank simply practiced the type of golf that's required the other 50 weekends out of the year (Open Championship being the other).

I'd venture the type of golf that one Jack Nicklaus practiced every day of his childhood was as different from what Charles Howell practiced as what Bobby Jones practiced as compared to him.

Can't say that I blame him. It's the more rational approach. I personally would rather see things head back toward the style practiced this weekend - I found it much more interesting. But I'm not holding my breath.

Maybe someone needs to tell Scott Verplank about Tom Paul's statement!

[Patrick_Mucci]

KFry,

I do live close to the Warren Course at Notre Dame that has no par.....

That's interesting.

Especially when I'm looking at a personal note that Bill Warren sent to me on 12-23-97, which included a schematic of the golf course and a score card that shows the par for each hole.[/color]

[David_Tepper]

George Pazin-

Scott Verplank is a USGA Amateur Champion, won the Western Open as an amateur (on Butler National, what was one of the longest, toughest courses on the PGA Tour) and an NCAA Champion (I think).

His whole golf game has been based on consistency, accuracy, grinding and scrambling - playing GOLF. He has never been a power player. In addition, he has battled diabetes and numerous physical injuries and ailments his whole life.

With respect to you and everyone of my fellow GCA participants, my guess is Scott Verplank has a better appreciation for the nature and character of championship golf than all of us GCAers COMBINED!

We will never know what Mackenzie, Colt, Flynn, Raynor, Tillinghast, et. al. would have thought of Sunday at Shinnecock, but, after watching missed 3-foot putts turn into 20-foot comebackers and seeing the best players in the world putting off greens into sand traps, I cannot imagine they would have been pleased or impressed or found it entertaining in the least.

Some people go to the Daytona 500 hoping to see a crash and others watch the NHL wanting to see a fight. I am not one of them.

DT      

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()