Non-Strategy Telltales

[BCrosby]

After the round, Tiger was quoted as saying:

"...there's [sic] no roars out here. Think about it, who is going to hole-in-one off the sides of these greens. At Augusta you hear eagle roars, you hear the big putts being made. Out here guys are just trying to make pars. That's the nature of this golf course. We heard one roar today and that was Chris holed out on 2. Other than that you didn't hear anything."

Tiger is describing what it means to play a non-strategic golf course. And that is how the USGA has set-up Pinehurst.

Players are posting lots of pars and lots of bogeys and very few under par scores. Put differently, there is a very narrow spectrum of scoring. The course forces defensive play. Taking risks does not compute.

Tiger also seems to be saying that these kinds of courses (at least when they are set up by the USGA) aren't much fun to play.

I would add that they aren't much fun to watch him play either.

Bob  

[Jeff_Mingay]

Hold tight, Bob. St. Andrews is just around the corner  

[Geoffrey Childs]

Bob

I would agree completely.  #2 is not my favorite ROss by a long shot and in my opinion those greens are rather uninteresting but for the little chip, pitch and putts from off the surfaces whcih seem to be repetitive from hole to hole.

Where are the interesting internal contours?

Where are the breaking putts to read? Once you are on them they are more boring then Bethpage Black and the Black has those fierce bunkers and variety in at least half the greens.

Where are the green features that actually work in your favor to gather balls toward certain pin locations?

The interest in viewing or playing might be akin to watching someon rolling a rock up a hill too high to reach the top and then smiling when the rock rolls back down to the bottom when you're too exhausted to hold it anymore.

Give me Ross greens at Wannamoisett, Seminole, Aronimink and maybe five others ahead of #2.

[Ted Kramer]

I'll disagree with some of the above.
I like watching this type of golf.
I don't need roars to excite me, mid irons hit precisely enough to hold these greens impress me plenty. I love watching the litle chips, bumps, and creative runners around the greens.

I enjoyed watching Tiger, VJ, Sergio and few others hit driver on #3.

Many of the stops on Tour are very similar. The game necesary to compete on those layouts is often pretty much one-dimensional. The Open changes things. These guys have to adapt. The course demands precision. And I like watching these guys get tested in different ways.

Maybe it goes back to the whimsical adventurer vs. antiseptic tester discussion.

-Ted

[BCrosby]

I guess what amazes me most is that if I spent my days eating, breathing and sleeping golf, as the guys at the USGA do, and if I had unlimited capital resources, as the guys at the USGA do, and if I had at my disposal the best golf library in the world, as the guys at the USGA do, and I had access to the best courses in the world, as the guys at the USGA do...

I think most normal, reasonably intelligent people would come up with a slightly more nuanced, more interesting notion of how best to set up a course for our national championship.

It is not woven into the fabric of the universe that the USGA should be incapable of exploring other ways of testing the best golfers in the world. Or is it?

Bob

 

[Ted Kramer]

I guess what amazes me most is that if I spent my days eating, breathing and sleeping golf, as the guys at the USGA do, and if I had unlimited capital resources, as the guys at the USGA do, and if I had at my disposal the best golf library in the world, as the guys at the USGA do, and I had access to the best courses in the world, as the guys at the USGA do...

I think most normal, reasonably intelligent people would come up with a slightly more nuanced, more interesting notion of how best to set up a course for our national championship.

It is not woven into the fabric of the universe that the USGA should be incapable of exploring other ways of testing the best golfers in the world. Or is it?

Bob

 

Nor is it woven into the fabric of the universe that the USGA shouldn't test the best golfers in the world in the manner that they seem to favor . . .

-Ted

[BCrosby]

Ted -

I think you miss my point.

The USGA has employed a certain kind of course set-up for years beyond counting.

Listening to them talk, it is clear they think their approach is somehow sacred - that their set-up of PII is self-evidently the best way to test golfers.

Seems to me it is neither self-evident nor the best test.  

Bob

[Ted Kramer]

Ted -

I think you miss my point.

The USGA has employed a certain kind of course set-up for years beyond counting.

Listening to them talk, it is clear they think their approach is somehow sacred - that their set-up of PII is self-evidently the best way to test golfers.

Seems to me it is neither self-evident nor the best test.  

Bob

I'm not missing your point.
Your point would actually be tough to miss, you don't like the USGA US Open type set-up. . . fair understanding of your point?

You offered an opinion regarding the quality/validity of this type of golf as a test, and I offered a different opinion . . .I don't think that there is any "missing of points" here, just a differing of opinions.

-Ted

[Brent Hutto]

The USGA has employed a certain kind of course set-up for years beyond counting.

Listening to them talk, it is clear they think their approach is somehow sacred - that their set-up of PII is self-evidently the best way to test golfers.

Seems to me it is neither self-evident nor the best test.  

The thinking of the USGA w.r.t. identifying the best players in the world suffers from a very common form of group-think that is a problem is every area, not just golf. Here's how it works.

At some point, the following observation seemed self-evident, "You have to put the ball in the fairway in order to score well". It's a cliche that you've heard from every broadcaster, every teaching pro, every magazine or newpaper article ever written about golf. Since this observation is so obviously true, it becomes a principle that hardly anyone would ever disagree with.

Once you believe that "You have to put the ball in the fairway to score well" it's a very short logical jump to believing that any time someone scores well in spite of missing the fairway then something is wrong with the golf course. If Vijay Singh can hit driver on every hole, even if it means missing a bunch of fairway, and still shoot six under par then obviously the game and/or the course (and/or the equipment) needs to be changed to eliminate that possibility.

So now the USGA believes that a necessary, important aspect of a US Open is making the fairways so narrow and the rough so long and thick that nobody can possibly shoot under par without hitting 11 or 12 fairways per round. If you allow someone to score without hitting fairways, you've violated the important axiom of "You have to put the ball in the fairway in order to score well" and you therefore haven't identified the best golfer.

If you choose to hold your championship at a course like Pinehurst #2 or Augusta National that was designed to offer interesting tournament golf without punitive rough and narrow fairways then you're going to have to decide between two options: a) let someone score well without putting the ball in the fairway b) butcher the course. The USGA and to a certain extent the Masters committee seem to prefer the latter. It is a narrow-minded view of the game of the golf that is handed down as received wisdom which is never seriously questioned.

It just goes to show that if you put smart people in a large enough group with enough money to do whatever they want, they'll eventually start acting stupid. It is my belief that a general principle of human behavior is that large groups of people act less intellegently than the individuals who make up the group. Over time, groups can evolve truly bizarre beliefs that the individuals internalize and take for granted.

[peter_p]

Geoffrey Childs hit it on the head. It is sisyphean.

[BCrosby]

Brent -

Yes, group dynamics probably have a lot to with it. You aren't asked into the inner sanctum of the USGA by rockin' the boat.

Ted -

It's not just that I disagree with their set-up philosophy. People differ; that's fine.

It's their utter unwillingness to consider other approaches in the face of evidence over the last several years that their approach has led to fiasco after fiasco. The embarrassment factor alone would give me pause if I were in their shoes. Heck, after a while I might even begin to wonder if there isn't a another, better way to "test" golfers.

I used to think poor Tom Meeks was to blame for this. I no longer think so. He is just the point man in a platoon that's marched itself into a ditch and doesn't know it.

Bob

[Ted Kramer]

Brent -

Yes, group dynamics probably have a lot to with it. You aren't asked into the inner sanctum of the USGA by rockin' the boat.

Ted -

It's not just that I disagree with their set-up philosophy. People differ; that's fine.

It's their utter unwillingness to consider other approaches in the face of evidence over the last several years that their approach has led to fiasco after fiasco. The embarrassment factor alone would give me pause if I were in their shoes. Heck, after a while I might even begin to wonder if there isn't a another, better way to "test" golfers.

I used to think poor Tom Meeks was to blame for this. I no longer think so. He is just the point man in a platoon that's marched itself into a ditch and doesn't know it.

Bob

Certainly a fair point.
They have made a few really embarrassing mistakes.
If Pinehurst continues to play the way it has for the remainder of the tourny, would you have a problem with this years event?

-Ted

[Brent Hutto]

It can make for a very interesting tournament when it comes down to two guys, one of whom is hitting fairways and greens and plugging away with pars and the other is hitting the ball crooked but making some birdies and saving enough pars with his short game to stay in contention. Two different routes to the same goal, which is to have a putt on the last hole to win the whole thing.

The USGA prefers a different kind of excitement where the top of the leaderboard is entirely populated by the guys with the most fairways and GIR for the week and it comes down to all but one of them making a couple of mistakes on Sunday with the last man standing being the one who hits it the straightest over the last nine holes or so.

Either way can lead to a championship worth watching.

[Lynn_Shackelford]

There is no strategy in a US Open championship.  There is no temptation.  It is not designed to be fun to play or watch.  However once a year I enjoy watching the discomfort of the players.  For me it is a mental endurance contest with some skills being displayed.
On Sunday, someone who is mentally tough and has enough confidence in their swing for it to hold up under the stress will prevail.
So far it is pretty boring, but come Sunday it should be interesting and Pinehurst doesn't take away from that USGA goal.

[Jason Topp]

While I would hate to see the US Open every week, I really like it as a contrast to the rest of the year.  I particularly like Pinehurst as a venue because of the short game shots and the holeable putts.  Was the US Open ever better than in 99?  I still replay the tape on occasion.

[tonyt]

There is no strategy in a US Open championship.  There is no temptation.  It is not designed to be fun to play or watch.  However once a year I enjoy watching the discomfort of the players.  For me it is a mental endurance contest with some skills being displayed.
On Sunday, someone who is mentally tough and has enough confidence in their swing for it to hold up under the stress will prevail.
So far it is pretty boring, but come Sunday it should be interesting and Pinehurst doesn't take away from that USGA goal.

This is my view to a tee. I don't favour this set up for its lack of strategy and its permanent preference of execution over selection and imagination. 'Nor do I like how therefore some of the great gems in world golf are presented away from their core design philosophy.

But once a year in June, when the ad breaks are heralded by that USGA theme music, I like to make my annual switch to the mode of watching elite grinding. The best grinding and endurance of all. Picking the few moments per round when there is a green light shot, and spending the rest among multiple moments of mistake minimalisation and supremely accurate smart plays being sweated on by the world's best is a great once a year treat.

The USGA have their devisive policy. And they get it right or very close to right in line with their goals year after year, a super effort given how far they have to push the envelope to achieve this. And we still get leaderboards each year with many great players figuring amongst the action, and a fine list of champions.

Aside from my enjoyment in the spectacle, I just wish other older clubs around the world didn't also bury their bunkers quite a few yards wide of the fairway lines!

[Jim Johnson]

There is no strategy in a US Open championship.  There is no temptation.  It is not designed to be fun to play or watch.  

I think Lynn is bang on here.

The USGA, for whatever reason, chooses to defend par at all costs on the golf course, and seemingly makes it a top priority. The result is an endurance contest, with the golfer who makes the least amount of bogeys the winner. As Mickelson stated early in the tournament, if a guy could par all 72 holes, he'd probably win.
And lo and behold, look what happened. An even par champion.

I don't have any problem watching an exciting golf tournament. I do have a bit of a problem watching a professional golf tournament which is comprised of front-runners shooting in the 80's on Sunday, of bundles of bogeys/doubles/others appearing all over the leaderboard, of pros trying to hit 23-yard wide fairways, of golfers hoping they don't putt their ball off of the putting green, etc.

Personally, I don't have any problem watching a golf championship in which golfers are actually shooting for the odd eagle, or running off a string of birdies (other than just Tiger!), etc. etc. I don't mean to see the leader come in at 25 under par. That's not what I'm talking about. But to see a leader win it with a score of 8 or 10 under par (not just once every 25 years either, I mean consistently from year to year), that to me would make for far more interesting viewing/playing. Heck, if I want to witness a spate of bogeys and double bogeys, I just need to watch my own game in the mirror.

Interesting statement, Lynn.
"It is not designed to be fun to play or watch".

JJ

[James Bennett]

'It is not designed to be fun to play or to watch'

'But once a year in June, when the ad breaks are heralded by that USGA theme music, I like to make my annual switch to the mode of watching elite grinding'


Lyn Shackleford's quote (the former) struck me as accurate, but so did Tony Titheridges (the latter).


What do you think USGA's ideal course would be?  

Does the USGA have an apparent preference for bunkering both sides of holes, for excessively narrow fairways, for eveness of penalty to be applied to mishits finishing in the rough, for only one way to play the hole (down the middle).  If so, any course that emphasizes penal (or can be amended to empahasize penal) at the expense of strategic would be an ideal US Open course.  I wonder what would the USGA's view of a 'Dark Ages' cop bunker would be today?

That said, I do enjoy watching the US Open, seeing some of the classic courses (albeit having to imagine what they are like with a regular set-up) and the Pro's having to play a different style of golf for one week of the year.

[Philip Gawith]

I broadly agree with the thrust of the discussion re the USGA set-ups for the US Open promoting a non-strategic, "hit the fairways at all cost" approach. Certainly in the UK that was also the burden of the TV commentary from Butch Harmon etc.

But if you wanted to be contrarian, you would note that Mark Hensby, who came third, was second last in the field in terms of fairways hit - only 36%.

Campbell, incidentally, was 8th in that category, 16th in GIR and 4th in putts.

[Brad Klein]

Actually, I think what the USGA does is great - one tournament, once a year - it makes this championship different. That's what gives this event its own unique identity.

I think in Pinehurst No. 2 they actually found the ideal course for what they like to do. No, it's not close to my favorite Ross, either - too demanding, too repetitive, too much work on each hole - what I would call a third shot golf course. If they widened the fairways and gave you diverse angles of approach, it would not yield the interest of play that a St. Andrews or an Augusta National does because those greens are so much more diverse and interesting. No. 2 isn't diverse - it's got about 16 virtually identical greens, or at least 18 variations of the same theme. But it's gut-wrenching to watch, and once a year I love the U.S. Open torture chamber.

When I've  played Pinehurst No. 2 I've enjoyed picking out run-up spots and finding them. It's not the kind of golf pros play, but most holes at Pinehurst No. 2 give you (the illusion of) that option, and the course is easily restored to a playing width for us average players that allows for that. But pros would never elect to play that way, so narrowing the fairways for the U.S. Open there, is not the sacrilige it would be at other places, like St. Andrews or the Old Course.