Not just any old Shinnecock thread!

[ForkaB]

Shivas

Good stuff, and not just because you gtend to agree with me!  You make the VERY valid point that ANY golf course can be tricked up to make players look foolish.  When such happens, it demeans the tricker-uppers, and not the golf course, but it does make you wonder what is going through the tricker-uppers' minds when they do it to a great course such as SH.

Adam

Wake up and smell the coffee!  And wake up your pal Matt Ward while you're at it!  He seems to be in a shattered expectation coma right now.......

[Dan Kelly]

Rich, Shivas & Co. --

Set aside No. 7.

What was wrong with the setup of the rest of the course?

[Mike Hendren]

Dan,

When is a chipping area not a chipping area?  When the ball never comes to rest there.

Mike

[JohnV]

If I had one serious complaint with the USGA setup this week it was that many of the hole locations were so close to slopes that ran to the edges of the green that there was no where to hit a ball so that it would remain on the green and be below the hole leaving a legitimate flatish or uphill putt.  They made it impossible for a player to play to a side of the hole where a putt could be made with some aggresiveness.

I think that the difference between a US Open hole location and a regular event hole location should be that there should be ONE good side to putt from at the Open vs 2 or 3 at a regular event.   Unfortunately there appeared to be no good sides that were on the green on a number of holes.  Having not played Shinnecock, perhaps that wasn't possible everywhere, but it seemed like it should have been more possible that they made it.

While putting from the fringes is ok, it seems to make it impossible to even get a ball within 10 feet of the hole and have a good putt at it.  Just moving the hole a few feet towards the middle of the greens might have accomplished a lot in my opinion.

[Dan Kelly]

When is a chipping area not a chipping area?  When the ball never comes to rest there.

Excellent point.

[Mike Hendren]

JohnV,

Insightful and well stated.

Mike

[ForkaB]

Dan

First let me confess.....

Due to other obligations (i.e. trying to stay on the non-heid butting side of the lager-induced louts at my local pub insisting on watching the Spain-Portugal soccer game....), I only know of the tournament from the 8th hole onward (i.e. not tainted by any "experience" of the unholy 7th...).

OK, given that, let me try to answer your question.

1.  I didn't see ANY holes of the.......

"Well, Rossie, he can take driver and try to fly the bunkers on the left, which will give him 153 to the pin and an easy angle to leave it below the hole, or he can take 1-iron short right and have a longer shot on a tougher angle..."

.......sort of shots.  In fact no real decisions off the tee except what club to get to position B (position A being non-existent or out of the question in most cases).  No alternative ways of people playing off the tee (except watching Tiger and Chopra on the 1st on Sat, in which case, BOTH alternatives left them with no real shot at birdie).

2.  In most cases, the only way to get close to the pin was to hit your 2nd (or 3rd) shot the EXACT distance on the EXACT line.  That is grinding and execution and not strategy, IMO.

3.  #10 is a really good example.  Great hole for you and me.  Decide whether or not to hit straight club to the top of the hill, or try to hit driver over the hill into the gully.  Case 1 you have a hill-to-hill shot of 170 or so, Case 2 you have a shorter shot (130?) but blind uphill.  So, what did the big boys do?   No choice, bomb it down to the bottom with a 3-wood or a 1-iron (Goosen) and then realise that even though the SW shot from there was "easier" than trying to hit 7-iron from one top of a Buick to another, it was still impossible.  With the pin on the front, and the penalty for hitting your 2nd short being you'd have to hit it all over again, is it any wonder that everybody hit it long (even Phil with his bump and run).  A strategy inducing hole?  NOT!

3.  9 and 18.  Bomb it and flip it.  ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.........

4.  Short game options?  Not many at all.  Nothing compared to the neighbor, NGLA, or almost any UK/Ireland links course.

You, somebody, anybody, tell me what I missed!  Please!

[Dan Kelly]

You, somebody, anybody, tell me what I missed!  Please!

Rich --

While I think you overstate your case (e.g.: There were, in fact, Position A's on most, if not all, holes, and I saw balls hit to them; and I thought I saw quite a few short-game options), and while I don't share your boredom with what you describe, I don't disagree with much of your description.

The *important* thing I think you're missing is, IMO, this: Professional golf is almost never about strategy and almost always about execution -- and the bigger the championship, the higher the demands on the players' execution.

Hole after hole, week after week, year after year, virtually all of these guys try to execute the same "strategy" (Position A from tee through green). No matter *how* they prepare Shinnecock, the pros are never going to play for the hilltop-to-hilltop shot on No. 10! Am I wrong about that? Is it really different on the British Open courses, during the Open?

 

[ForkaB]

Shivas

Bango, Bongo!

I HATE the phrase "target golf" because it is what the Brits and Irish use to denigrate US golf.  When they say it it means what I would call "dart golf" i.e. hitting from soft fairways to receptive greens.

What most of them do not understand is that great links golf is ALSO "target golf."  The only difference is that when links courses are prepared properly, there are multiple "targets" to aim at, both on the drives and the approach shots, each demanding a choice between multiple shots,

Shinnecock lacked this multiplicity of targets and choice, alas.  Ergo, "anti-strategy."  QED.

[A_Clay_Man]

It's pretty obvious that this course has encouraged various opinions. As far as open discourse goes, this a great thing. Could another course have offereed us this much minutae to disect? In this aspect the course won, hands down.

For all those who busted it close, on ten, only to find the rear slide to doom, perhaps thier strategy was flawed ? Perhaps under those conditrions, closer ain't better. Or the implements used were ill-suited for the tasks, needed to be handy.
 

Coffee Anyone?
 

[ForkaB]

Dan

5-7 days ago, some stalwarts on this site were praising the 10th to the skies for exactly that reason--the options of laying up or going for the gully.  They were proved wrong.  Maybe it was the wind or the stars.  I don't know.

Overall I was NOT bored.  As I have said before, it was great competitive theatre.  I was just understimulated--particularly in not being able to see players of roughly equal ability play holes deliberately differently.  Last time I really saw that was the Lytham Open in Duval's year, or Augusta just about any year........ .

Finally, I do think that golf at the highest level is about BOTH strategy and execution.  Exhibit A was Tiger's win at St. Andrews where he out strategised and outexecuted the entire field.  Exhibits B are the careers of Nicklaus and Hogan.  Yes, great execution (read, great "putting") will win one more than one's share of tournaments, but over time its the whole package that counts.

A golf course should be set up to test the whole package, not just the ephemeral one.......

[George Pazin]

Does anyone else find Rich's "lack of strategy at Shinnecock" thesis to be particularly paradoxical?

I thought every shot and every hole possessed strategy, according to the gospel of Rich?

I thought the theater was not as captivating as The Masters this year, but that the actual golf and architecture were far more so.

[ForkaB]

George

You are reading upside down again.  My mantra is that NO golf hole is "strategic" but that every golf hole can be played strategically by people (i.e. golfers).  The problem with SH2004, is that the USGA set-up took away most of he possibly interesting strategic options for the golfers, so the "strategy" which was evidenced was largely unidimensional.  You obviously disagree.  How and where did you see golfers playing particularly interestingly strategically?

[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- You admittedly missed the nearly 40% of sunday's round. There was plenty of thinking going on.

You missed Veejay play a putter from the front of 7. The victor himself, played multiple shots for position. He even had the announcers convinced he was going to do "it" again, when he flew it at the flag.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John V & Rich Goodale,

Most are unaware that many of the chipping areas were newly created.

Previously they had been rough, and the players would merely Lob wedge their way to a recovering par.

The insertion of chipping areas, runoffs, is what did them in.

But isn't that what this site has been clamoring for for five years, more options, less rough around greens ?

And, now the USGA gives you those options, those different methods of play and all everybody can do is complain about it.

So, are you all suggesting bringing back high rough around the greens, or were the runoffs and chipping areas just what you've been asking for for years ?

BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU WISH FOR.... YOU MAY GET IT