Carnoustie: Which story is true?

[Sean_A]

Now that Carnoustie is upon us, the '99 Open debate rears its ugly head again.  Remember, I have no love lost for Carnoustie.  I have always thought that there was no effort by the R&A to trick up Carnoustie.  The pain of that week was mainly due to weather and not a major departure from the normal setup.  Sure, some mistakes were made because of all things, the R&A didn't envision nasty weather.  It would seem the 6th hole is what eats away at most who complain bitterly about Carnoustie.  The Head Greenkeeper is still maintaining his innocence and it all sounds much more plausible than the conspiracy theory of feeding rough.  Have a read, you may find it interesting and enlightening.  
http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2007/07/carnoustie_whittengd0707?currentPage=1

Ciao

[Philip Gawith]

That version of events seems broadly plausible, though it does not square with the anecdote about Greg Norman missing a fairway by a few feet and then struggling to move it at all. It also slightly stretches credulity that Garcia could go from shooting 62 to being plus 30 after two rounds and it is all down to tough weather and just bad golf.

I wonder if anyone has asked Ron Whitten whether he has had any regrets about his demolition of Hoylake last year?!

[Phil McDade]

Sean:

I've argued this before, and haven't seen anything yet written that dispels my central notion of the '99 Open -- that the set-up yielded what I'd call arbitrary, or lucky, results, and not necessarily ones resulting as much from skill.

I offer up as proof the huge scoring disparity -- dozens and dozens of rounds in the 80s, many of them after the cut, and even rounds in the 90s. Pampling is a pretty good example -- 70 Thursday, 86 and a missed cut Friday. Was he that much worse on Friday, or just that much more unlucky? I'd argue the latter. Take a look at the scoring disparity at Oakmont this year and Carnoustie in '99 -- two of the highest-scoring majors (relative to par) in recent years. Oakmont had lots of scores in the mid-to-high 70s, even among the leaders, but very few whacky scores. Carnoustie had a bunch of off-the-chart scores, and I don't think weather had a lot to do with it (I recall the weather for that Open to be relatively subdued, nothing like the Muirfield Saturday a few years after that). I do think Whitten has an argument about the '99 Carnoustie hay and the weather that year -- when I was there, lots of Scots commented about the wet summer that year.

But I do think the set-up in '99 (although I'm hesitant to use the word unfair, as everyone plays it) yielded results that were arbitrary (and I'm not one to bash, either, Van de Valde's or Lawrie's presence on top of the leaderboard -- both had been playing well that year on the Euro Tour, and qualified on merit for the Ryder Cup. Add Leonard, a former champion and another Ryder Cupper that year, and I always thought the leaderboard has been a bit under-appreciated). It just seemed that results of shots were as much a matter of luck than skill, with an incredibly narrow margin between a good shot and one that was just dead (not just off the tee, but approaches and green surrounds as well).

[Phil_the_Author]

My problem with the excuses in the article is that they center around an unusual growth caused by strange weather. Where that may have happened, we are still talking about fairway widths and grass heights.

I have yet to see a cloud pushing a lawn mower, an instrument that obviously wasn't used properly in '99. But then again, I guess that was the weather's decision...

[Bob_Huntley]

I am not buying it.

Philp sounds like a different character than when he opined in 1999, that the pros were over-sensitive, over-coddled and over-paid. He sounded more like a guy with a political agenda than a keeper of the green.

There was a lot that was done that year that could well have been avoided and produced a Championship that was not a circus act.


Bob

[Phil Benedict]

Not that it matters now but Lawrie's final round 67 has to rank among the greatest ever given the set up and conditions.  Unfortunately it sort of got lost in the van de Weld blowup.

I happened to watch the replay of the final round at Oakmont this year.  What a great round Cabrera played.

[Phil_the_Author]

Sean, my real point was that the members of the R&A and Mr. Philp, etc... have eyes. They can see the height of the grass and the width of the fairways.

To blame unfair conditions on an uncontrllable height of rough due to weather when all they had to do was cut the grass down a bit in the week before the Open is a ludicrous excuse.

They made a conscious decision to allow play in conditions that were less than ideal when they could have done something about it.

How often are comments made in the media and on here and elsewhere deriding the course set-ups for US Opens and the USGA? I wish I had a buck for every person who asked why the USGA didn'e water that par-three at Shinnecock.

Likewise, If you want rough to be of a certain height and it is far exceeding it, why not simply cut it down to size?

Not doing so matches every assumed stupidity attributed to the USGA.

Both the R&A & Mr. Philp deserved being raked over the fire for the decision that they most definitely made in '99.

The weather is innocent...

[Phil McDade]

Sean:

What weather?

Really. I know I wasn't over there at the time (left two days before the Open started), but from what I watched on TV, and I saw most of it, the weather to me seemed to range from somewhat breezy to benign, and not overly difficult to handle. Several other recent Opens -- Muirfield's famous Saturday storm, the really strong winds seen on the 3rd round at Birkdale, the opening day at Troon the year Leonard won -- seemed to have had much worse of it than Carnoustie ever got in '99.

To cite one more anecdote, when I walked the course two days before the start at Carnoustie, I spent a lot of time talking to some fairly informed golf fans -- Scots, Brits, Europeans and Americans. To a person, we collectively though the winning score could reach +10 to +12 with any sort of bad weather. I thought +6 was a pretty decent score with that set-up, and to me was an indication that weather didn't play all that much of a factor.

[Tim Pitner]

I'm not sure where to lay the blame but remember this-- Carnoustie had been off the rota for some time and had a near mythical reputation as the most difficult Open course, if not the most difficult course in the world.  I really believe that some actor--either the R&A, the staff at Carnoustie, or both--was motivated to ensure that the course lived up to its reputation.

[Mark Pearce]

Sean:

What weather?

Really. I know I wasn't over there at the time (left two days before the Open started), but from what I watched on TV, and I saw most of it, the weather to me seemed to range from somewhat breezy to benign, and not overly difficult to handle. Several other recent Opens -- Muirfield's famous Saturday storm, the really strong winds seen on the 3rd round at Birkdale, the opening day at Troon the year Leonard won -- seemed to have had much worse of it than Carnoustie ever got in '99.

To cite one more anecdote, when I walked the course two days before the start at Carnoustie, I spent a lot of time talking to some fairly informed golf fans -- Scots, Brits, Europeans and Americans. To a person, we collectively though the winning score could reach +10 to +12 with any sort of bad weather. I thought +6 was a pretty decent score with that set-up, and to me was an indication that weather didn't play all that much of a factor.

Phil,

The weather in question isn't the weather for the Championship itself but in the preceeding months when the rough was growing.  '99 was a wet warm summer - great for growing monster rough.  Most links courses let the weather dictate their rough.  Dry summers give conditions like Hoylake last year.  Wet warm summers give deep, thick rough.  The problem at Carnoustie was how close that rough got to the fairways.  I don't, by the way buy Philp's argument that the first cut had burnt away in a warm spell just before the Open.

[Bruce Katona]

Given what has been said and written so far this year regarding course conditions, my hope is that we get to see the varieties of weather that links courses typically see during a four day period.....given the typical bomb and gouge PGA Tour event, it makes for very inetersting and exciting TV.

[Matt_Ward]

Phil B:

Need to take issue regarding Lawrie's supposed all-time round. The man started 10 shots behind and had nothing to lose in being aggressive at every stage during the final round. If he flamed out so be it.

Great rounds are when you are in the heat of battle and you must still produce. Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont qualifies on that count many times over.

I don't mean to diminish what Lawrie did but when you look at what his career has been you have to place his so-called great round in context.

Inane set-ups generally produce inane champs -- the '99 Open did that and more.

Frankly, Carnoustie doesn't need any help on that score.

[Brian_Ewen]

But I would say that this year has been a warm and wet spring/summer , and from what I saw today , the rough is totally different .

Its brown and wispy , and not near the same amount as 99.

[Kalen Braley]

Sean,

Here is a weather Diary of the British Isles that could have some info in it on the weather that year.

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~brugge/diary1999.html#0799

I did find this:

Rain over Ireland and W Scotland before dawn sprad to N England and the remainder of Scotland, with the `Open' golf tournament at Carnoustie being affected for the second day by gusty winds

[G Jones]

Carnoustie, and Panmure, and other courses in that part of Angus, tend to have long whispy rough that has lush green rough underneath it. This is what destroyed the pros in 1999. Carnoustie also normally has fairly narrow fairways.

This isn't a "oh, I'm so tough i'm from carnoustie" comment... this is the truth... - that it is very often like it was in 1999.
I went out the days directly after the Open and only found it slightly harder than normal. Almost everyone I knew broke Sergio's higher round easily. And the 6th always had a small lay up area - it tempts you to go for the green if it's downwind, or to lay up well back if it's not. The pros just aren't used to hitting long irons as their third shots into par 5's so they didn't like it... but if the whole field has to then what is the problem? If you laid up 180 yards from the green (and a big green at that) it was perfectly wide... none of this 8 yards across layup stuff they moaned about.

It was a combination of a) wetter rough than normal and b) people who were mentally used to going for birdie on every hole.

I'm not saying it turned out well... but i think a lot of the "crazy scores" were from people getting off to a terrible start, being shell shocked, and losing all concentration.

Given that it's fresh in people's minds, and recent experiences such as at Oakmont, if that Open were played again in indentical conditions I bet there wouldn't be as many crazy scores.

[Glenn Spencer]

Phil B:

Need to take issue regarding Lawrie's supposed all-time round. The man started 10 shots behind and had nothing to lose in being aggressive at every stage during the final round. If he flamed out so be it.

Great rounds are when you are in the heat of battle and you must still produce. Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont qualifies on that count many times over.

I don't mean to diminish what Lawrie did but when you look at what his career has been you have to place his so-called great round in context.

Inane set-ups generally produce inane champs -- the '99 Open did that and more.

Frankly, Carnoustie doesn't need any help on that score.

I agree. A round of golf can't go from a great round on Sunday to one of the best ever, just because a guy gets hit by a bus on 18.

Sean Arble,

That was a good post you made in #6. The ending seemed about right.

[Phil McDade]

Sean:

My central criticism of the Carnoustie set-up in '99 was that it appeared to be too narrow, with really thick hay too close to the fairways, to be a fair test of golfing ability for a links course subject to strong winds.

I may be wrong about the winds, but I do know the course played at 7,316 yards in '99, pre-ProV1 and some other technological advances in the game in the past several years. That kind of yardage, on a par 71 course, was a really, really long course back then -- arguably longer than this year's 7,412-yard set-up, given technology advances. To my way of thinking, and looking over the course, the length in '99 virtually forced players to use driver on many, many holes, and subject them to very narrow landing targets and considerable, sometimes unplayable, stuff not far from those targets. I think that's why some scores in '99 were just off the charts -- mid-80s and even 90s. That to me was the chief distinction between the Carnoustie set-up and the Hoylake set-up. Hoylake was browner, granted, but one could tack their way around the course without resorting to driver that much (Tiger, yes, but others did it as well). Tiger I think was quoted as saying that Hoylake last year effectively played at around 6,000 yards, and thus he felt no need to use driver. Carnoustie in '99 demanded driver off many tees because of legitimately long holes, and thus brought ridiculously high scores into play. To me, the set-up was severe -- too severe, in my view -- for a course at that length, subject to winds.

[George Pazin]

I disagree with Matt and Glen. The fact that Van de Velde collapsed had no bearing on Lawrie shooting a 67 when others were going much higher.

If it were so easy to freewheel it, down 10 strokes, you'd see a helluva lot more Sunday comebacks. As it is, you generally see few or none. Look at how many majors have been won by the final pairing.

The 10 strokes back is not the impressive part, the 67 is.

I think I read recently that when Miller shot his 63, he was preceeded by Lanny or Jay Haas or someone just a group or 2 ahead of him, shooting a 65.

You're elevating Miller's round because of Miller's career, and similarly downgrading Lawrie's because of his career. The remark was not "best round by a guy with a great career", it was labeling the round one of the all time great rounds. Can't see where you can quibble with that.

What coulda happened did.

[Tim Pitner]

George,

I agree completely.  I don't understand denigrating Lawrie's 67.  Carnoustie was impossible that year, remember?  Tight fairways, high rough, some astronomical number of rounds in the 80s.  67 was an unbelievable round, whatever Lawrie's place beginning the day.  And let's also not forget Lawrie's 3 iron into 18 in the playoff--one of the purest shots I've ever seen (and you can't say he was just free-wheeling it then).  The man had his day.  Actually, Lawrie played quite well in the Brookline Ryder Cup too.  Unfortunately, he hasn't done much since.  He's a good mudder though.  

[Phil McDade]

Sean:

Well, I do see the similarity between Carnoustie and Oakmont -- they each seem to be their country's respective "penal" courses. But -- and this is based purely on photos and watching this year's US Open -- Oakmont seemed to be set up in a way that was severe and punishing, but not over the top. It required precise play, but was not overly long, and several folks (Tiger rnd. 3, Cabrera final round, Baddeley at times) showed they could play the course without being punished. It had the added benefit, in my view, of being flexible, and offering players through the USGA's astute tee set-ups a variety of ways to attack it. Maybe it's a fine line, but Carnoustie struck me -- mainly because of the set-up -- as being overly penal, not as flexible, and subject to scores that bordered on silly because golfers could only attack it in one way. Granted, the final scores were nearly the same at each course, but the scoring disparity was much wider at Carnoustie than Oakmont.

[Doug Siebert]

I was just thinking that Lawrie would be a great darkhorse bet so I looked up his odds and found he's at 200 to 1.  If they weren't teeing off in a few minutes I might think about putting $20 down on him just for the hell of it

[Anthony Butler]

I am not sure what the intention was at Carnoustie in '99 but the rough did not just spring up like that.

I played the course in late May and the rough was already incredibly thick. Recall that I lost 2 balls only a few yards off the fairway, and almost lost my 7 iron when looking for another ball. Put it down next to the ball and went to get my carry bag. 10 minutes of shuffling around in the rough to find my club again.  

IMHO what happened was they allowed the rough to continually grow thoughout the spring with the expectation that some drier weather would thin it out in June/July. As it turns out the opposite happened. By the beginning of July they needed a hay bailer in the rough to make a difference. The USGA would have stepped in to manage the conditions a little more at this stage, but the R&A was more inclined to let nature decide the challenge.

To some degree that is still their philosophy–the current R&A Secretary Peter Dawson wants to present the course a certain way and let the weather dictate the final score. With the same weather conditions as '99, the '07 winning score should be in the 6-8 under range.

[Jason Topp]

In 2000 I played Carnoustie and asked my caddie whether it was true that the rough was not irrigated and was not fertilized.

I can't recall his exact words, but it was something like "Yeah . . . right . . ."

[Evan_Smith]

At the 1999 US Open at Pinehurst my Dad met and had a conversation with Sir Michael Bonallack.  The rough at #2 was not really there since they had some unusual weather and couldn't grow it properly (I forget the exact story, I'll have to ask him) and Sir Michael's response was "We'll make sure this doesn't happen at The Open this year".  You can take what you want from that, but I would gather that they definitely did something to the rough to make sure it was long and healthy.  

[Doug Siebert]

So is there a decision in the rules of golf that limits how long you are allowed to look for your ball AGAIN after you've found it and put a club down by it, and have to search to find both the club and the ball?