17th at Oakmont...

[tlavin]

Tom

I agree and think that the long rough detracted from the inherent architecture of Oakmont.

"Now would Oakmont and the U.S. Open be better served the next time this major rolls around if the rough that chokes the strategic genius of the property were significantly thinned as well?

"I don't think there would be any doubts," said 2006 U.S. Open champion Geoff Ogilvy when asked if Oakmont and the tournament would be an even better test without the trademark thick rough that greeted players this week. "There should be rough, but more like the kind they have at Royal Melbourne where you can make a shot out of it. I don't like the automatic one-shot penalty."

That was from Scott Michaux's article:

http://savannahnow.com/node/307183

I'm sure most of the players would prefer the kind of rough "where you can make a shot out of it."  I'm sure they don't like the "automatic one-shot penalty".  But the Competition Committee apparently disagrees and they get to set up the golf course.  Back in 2003, the Competition Committee agreed with Ogilvy's philosophy and they cut the rough two days before the start of the Open at my club, Olympia Fields.  

What was the result?  Olympia was trashed in the media because it was too weak.  Why was it too weak?  Soft greens from nightly rains and rough that the pros could advance balls to the greens which held shots even without spin.  Olympia wound up being a one year experiment of a kinder and gentler USGA (principally because of the rough policy) and the eastern clubs were allowed to grow rough that would sprain our wrists and the golf fans around the globe cheered mightily at the golfers' struggles.

The bottom line is that the US Open is the one event that fairly demands this type of brutal setup.  This year, the USGA did everything right and they had the perfect course for their championship.  A three hundred yard par 3 and a three hundred yard par 4?  Are you kidding me?  That is a hell of a golf course.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Terry

To me par is not relevant in a US Open.

Regarding the Olympia Fields Open, I think tarps on the greens should have been used to protect the firm greens that existed prior to the tournament. Were they considered?

[Jim Nugent]

Sorry if this has been answered already: how would Oakmont play with no rough at all, but all the other architectural features intact, including bunkers, ditches, etc?  

[Matt_Ward]

Terry L:

AS an FYI -- the USGA has stated for quite some time that rough should be in the neighborhood of a 1/2 shot penalty. Clearly, the approach taken last year at WF demonstrated a new approach with the graduated role for rough in certain areas of the course.

I would hope the USGA does not abandon the 1/2 shot penalty given the role recover shots should play. However, to be totally fair, when players hit shots THAT far off-line I don't see why they should not suffer the appropriate consequences.

Just think back to where Angel hit his tee shot on #12 on Saturday's 3rd round.

[Rich Goodale]

I wasn't able to see a lot of the 72 holes.  Can anybody tell me what % of players tried to drive the green and how their scores compared to those who laid up?

Thanks in advance

[Jim Colton]

It is great.  I don't know how much they showed of #2 yesterday on TV, but with the tees at 326, it probably presents even more options.  Layup to the normal layup, layup short of the center bunker, take it over the bunker for the front of the green, take it to the left of the bunker and hope to get in the greenside bunkers.

I agree that #2 is a better risk-reward hole, in that it seems to do a better job at getting the risk-reward trade-off right.  #17 got more attention due to its position in the round and the drama at that point in the championship.   On #17, the shot was high risk either laying up (with little reward) or going for it (with some reward).  About 46% of drives found the fairway on 17 (I'm assuming a drive on the green counts) and 70% found the fairway on #2, which leads me believe that more golfers laid up and we're able to find the fairway as a result.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

IMO, the true test of a drivable par4 in tournament play is the number of eagles and birdies vs. the number of bogies.

I don't think there were too many eagles at Oakmont's short par4s.

[David Druzisky]

As the leaders were coming down the home stretch of holes 17 was what I was looking forward to the most.  What choices were they going to take.  At that point the risk may translate to winning or losing the US Open!

17 is complimented wonderfully in that competition by the 18th.  Because 18 was so difficult to score on and easy to bogey or worse yet, the best chance for making a last move or even to maintain a position is there on that hole.  Don't you think most players if they were being pursued by the groups after them - and especially Tiger - would be thinking oh Man there is a good chance they are going to birdie that hole.  An overal great place to test their mental stability.  18 is all about survival.  17 is about opportunity.

[Matt_Ward]

Given the nature of what Oakmont's 17th did -- I only smile even more so if the folks at BB would turn the boring ho-hum final hole there to a situation similar in what you saw this past week.

[Phil McDade]

Matt Ward:

That's a great idea! I've always wondered what the answer would be for that finish; maybe an ultra-gambling half-par hole is the answer. How would they do that with that bunker complex that pinches the fairway landing area? I seem to recall most players sort of took long-iron/3-wood off the tee and had a not terribly difficult or long approach into the 18th green.

Doug:

I'm not sure I agree with your view on 17th as it was set-up for Sunday. Take Furyk. The guy knew he was either one down or tied for the lead stepping up to 17. Having drained three birdie putts on the back nine, Furyk (I would argue) should have done everything humanly possible to give himself a putt on that green. I think an iron off the tee in that instance was more likely to produce a second shot that he could, guaranteed, put on the green, vs. taking the driver, which ran the risk of putting it somewhere with a greater risk of not getting it on the green with a second shot. I didn't see too many easy up-and-downs from the rough on 17. (Furyk clearly didn't seem to be trying to drive the green on 17 on Sunday; he said he was shocked that he hit his tee shot that far, which ended up nearly hole high.)

 

[Doug Siebert]

Phil,

If Furyk laid up with an iron and missed the fairway, as many players did thanks to that spine running down the middle of the fairway, he'd have been in a worse position than he was after his tee shot.

I think his mistake there was that he was not playing to the fat part of the green because he didn't trust his ability to two putt a long putt.  I have no idea why he was playing to the right of the pin, I don't know if he was trying to leave himself a makeable putt but it sure didn't look like he was playing safe and thinking 4 there like he should have.  He had to be thinking that if it jumped on him he'd be in bigmouth laying three and that shot is just too hard if you know that you are screwed if you hit it short or hit it long.  IMHO the correct play from where he was would have been to play for the back right of the green and try to two putt from 60 or 70 feet.  Going long there wouldn't be a big problem with so much green to work with and some ability to control the ball on the slopes.

He did mention that he was surprised how far his ball went on 17, I think he was trying to just lay up a driver short of the green.  That's an error on his caddie's part, who should have known he'd have a lot of adrenaline in his system and he should hit a 3W for a layup or hit the driver with the intent of going for the green.

I was thinking all day long that if I were there I'd just aim at bigmouth because it looked like a pretty easy up and down, but it must have been slicker down that hill towards the hole than anyone realized because every player seemed to do what Tiger did and went too far and off the green past the hole.  I always think if I was Tiger or Phil or one of the other mega rich pros I'd station one of my posse on every green and look for things like that that everyone is doing and have them relay that information to my caddy on each tee so he can clue me in.  Assuming that's legal and doesn't constitute illegal advice, that is.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

It's pretty clear from what Furyk said later what he was trying to do on 17 with his driver. He thought it was a better play coming up just short of the green even if he was in that heavy cabbage there. Obviously he didn't think he could hit his driver farther than that and get out of angle right around the green. From just short and inline with the length or the green he probably felt he had a better chance of just chunking it out and down the long and narrow orientation of the green to the pin than he would have from trying to get it close coming at the shallow orientation from the fairway layup area risking bunkers short and long. One thing we should credit Furyk for his is really good course management and decision making. After all that is the strength of his golf game.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil:

I agree with you.

The issue with BB is the inability to fundamentally provide a closing hole that ADDS to the overall excitement. The final hole today does only one thing ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Here are the stats for the week for this hole:

Scoring average: 4.066

Eagles: 2

Sunday: 17 bogeys and 13 birdies.

I'm still trying to find the number of birdies for the week.

Is this really a risk/reward hole or just a difficult short par4?

[Kalen Braley]

Sunday: 17 bogeys and 13 birdies.

Is this really a risk/reward hole or just a difficult short par4?

Steve,

Haven't you just answered your question with those stats?

17 represents the risk, and 13 represents the reward.  If you look at the stats for say the 18th, then that would be an entirely different story.  I think the 17th worked really well for the pros, I just don't see how a 20 handicapper can play that hole.