[Chris Moore]

I did not watch a shot of the PGA until Sunday.  When I did finally settle in and watch some golf, I was struck by the fact that I never once saw a putt that was breaking sideways at it approached the hole.  Moreover, putts from 40+ feet nearly always looked like they were going in.  Are the greens there really as flat as they appeared on TV?  Are they that flat because the members would be unable to play the course if the greens were more difficult?

[JR Potts]

The course was not built with the members interests at heart.  

That being said, Tiger's putts on 6, 7, 8, 12, 16 and 18 all broke about a foot.  The guy just makes it look easy....especially his putt on 16.

Plus, due to the fact that the greens were so soft the ball was never allowed to funnel into places where more interesting putts would be required.

Just look at those run-off areas.  How many people were actually in them.  Run-offs are pointless when the ball isn't allowed to run-off into them.

[Mike_Cirba]

Chris,

At first I thought the title of your post was one of those oxymorons, like "Jumbo Shrimp".

[Mike_Cirba]

or "governmental ethics"

or "military intelligence"


or, "USGA equipment regulations"  

[tlavin]

The relative flatness of the rebuilt greens is no doubt the number one observation that I made when I was there on Saturday.  I will confess that I didn't notice that when I played there a few weeks before the championship, but the pros had very little difficulty keeping their putts online and the speed that they were able to maintain didn't scare the players either.

Having said that, if #5 and #10 had been played as long par 4s instead of relatively reachable par 5's, the chatter about the vulnerability of the golf course would have been muted somewhat.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()