[Mike_Golden]

If it's the US Open, you can be sure that the lack of architectural integrity will be bemoaned on GCA.  The USGA will be criticized for narrowing the fairways, ruining the golf course, etc, etc, etc.

Let's face it, guys-the USGA doesn't care what we think, and, until the golf ball and/or equipment is limited, the only way to make this tournament different than all the others out there (as a National Championship probably should be) is to make the course tough enough so that the pressure of the moment puts enough stress in the leader's head so that the best player (under pressure) comes out the winner.

I've been watching most of the day and you can't convince me that the primary reason why the leader is at +3 right now is the golf course-it's the pressure of the setup making these guys hit shots that aren't even close to their normal standards.

There's no doubt that Winged Foot is a marvelous golf course that is a great test of any golfer.  But, after just watching Mickelson push another iron into a bunker on #13 and Ferrie hit one way right and short you can't persuade me of anything other than the course setup creates the stress and the stress creates many of the bad shots-put these guys on the golf course tomorow (without the pressure of the tournament) and some of them will burn it up.

[DMoriarty]

Let's face it, guys-the USGA doesn't care what we think, and, until the golf ball and/or equipment is limited, the only way to make this tournament different than all the others out there (as a National Championship probably should be) is to make the course tough enough so that the pressure of the moment puts enough stress in the leader's head so that the best player (under pressure) comes out the winner.

Let me get this straight . . . the USGA has no choice but to trick up their Championship courses in order to create a proper challenge worthy of today's equipment?  

Alas.  If only the USGA had authority over the equipment.

[Craig Sweet]

The USGA has been "trickin' up" Open courses for decades....the argument that todays ball/equipment is to blame just doesn't wash...

On the other hand, maybe there are viewers out there that like the week in and week out birdie fest called the PGA Tour?

[DMoriarty]

Craig, they are now taking their tricks to new heights.  New widths as well.  And new lengths.  

Why is it so hard to understand that it isnt about the score, but rather the architecture?  

[Craig Sweet]

Just what specifically is it about the set up that has made the architectural integerity irrelevent?

Or better yet, how does the player's inability to hit a good shot relate to the couorse being "ruined"?

[Mike_Golden]

Let's face it, guys-the USGA doesn't care what we think, and, until the golf ball and/or equipment is limited, the only way to make this tournament different than all the others out there (as a National Championship probably should be) is to make the course tough enough so that the pressure of the moment puts enough stress in the leader's head so that the best player (under pressure) comes out the winner.

Let me get this straight . . . the USGA has no choice but to trick up their Championship courses in order to create a proper challenge worthy of today's equipment?  

Alas.  If only the USGA had authority over the equipment.

David,

Congratulations on completely twisting what I said-I suppose you Aced that subject in law school.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tournament set-ups are rather temporary...grass heights, pin positions, sand consistency, tees used, etc. — It is when the course gets physically altered that we should be concerned and weigh the design decisions. The better thread here is Pat's great question about disfiguration.

[Joel_Stewart]

I was channel switching between the US Open and the Golf Channel which was airing highlights of the Masters.  I thought Winged Foot was far better than Augusta.

[DMoriarty]

Let's face it, guys-the USGA doesn't care what we think, and, until the golf ball and/or equipment is limited, the only way to make this tournament different than all the others out there (as a National Championship probably should be) is to make the course tough enough so that the pressure of the moment puts enough stress in the leader's head so that the best player (under pressure) comes out the winner.

Let me get this straight . . . the USGA has no choice but to trick up their Championship courses in order to create a proper challenge worthy of today's equipment?  

Alas.  If only the USGA had authority over the equipment.

David,

Congratulations on completely twisting what I said-I suppose you Aced that subject in law school.

You figured me out Mike, I've got a bundle of tricks to make the strong argument appear weaker and visa versa.   As for your summarily dismissing my post without bothering to address my point, I'd give you an A+.  Where did you learn that?  

Seriously, me twisting your words?  I dont think so.  Your words are the untwisted ones in quotes and rest are mine.   While I was responding to your post, I think I was pretty accurate in my representation of your words.  But let's make sure- you did say that until the equipment is limited, the only way to differentiate this championship is to to make the course tough, didnt you?  
________________________

Craig Sweet, do you think Tillinghast meant for all the fairway bunkers to be purely decoration?  Do you think he designed the green contours thinking that every single approach would come from the same angle defined by a 20something yard swath?
________________________________

Forrest, physically ripping up greens is much worse, but the two go hand in hand.  They are both part of the USGA's USGA's approach on how to deal with the new equipment.  

Plus to this is our governing body and our Nat'l Championship.  The influence ripples across the land.  

 

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Knock it off, both of you!

All's I know is that history repeats itself. We should all realize this. I also know that Tom Marzloff's new name is Keep Tom Marzl-OFF!

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:  The USGA Green Section encourages golf courses to rip up their greens and rebuild them to USGA specs all the time.  They've done it on at least a half dozen courses where we consult -- even when no one at the club had brought up the subject.

They've even put in print that greens ought to be rebuilt every twenty years.

If that were true, then we'd be seeing the fifth generation of putting surfaces at Winged Foot and the sixth at Oakmont ... but I'm sure they would be well preserved by the restoration architects!

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom — You can re-build a green exactly the same as it existed. Granted, this is seldom a reality. But, it can be done if the right peope, are involved.

I do not condone re-building greens for the sake of USGA specs, or any other non-functional or design reason.

My point is that most of the USGA and other torunament set-up changes are superficial...they do not eat at the heart of the course. When they do, it gives cause to make sure the changes are interesting and not just change for the sake of change.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom — You can re-build a green exactly the same as it existed.

I think this statement says it all.

Forrest, I have seen some pretty screwed-up greens that were supposed to be exact after making them USGA specs. They weren't even close.

I'm going to withhold names to protect the guilty, and in this case, the promotion of website harmony. It has everything to do with who is building the greens.

[Mike_Golden]

Actually, David, my point was (and is) that these guys are so good that if you really want the true champion they need to be stressed enough to bring the best golfer that weekend to the top.  A normal tour setup doesn't do that, nor will any golf architecture (at least for the top pros).  If you had ever played with one  of the touring pros, even someone at the bottom of the money list, it would be evident.

I would like to see the ball and equipment dialed back for the tour as much as anyone else-I rarely watch tournament golf anymore because I find it boring and repetitive, but if you think it's as simple as the USGA changing the specificiations then you are living in a dream world.   The industry has become too large and changes such as that would have an enormous economic impact on all of the equipment manufacturers.  They are not going down without a fight.

I see nothing wrong with, for a brief period of time, turning a course like WKW into an examination of the top player's nerves, course management skills, and ability to play under pressure and stress.  If you do, then don't watch the tournament, just as I ignore almost all of the others during the year.  We play a completely different game than these guys anyway.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

"Forrest:  The USGA Green Section encourages golf courses to rip up their greens and rebuild them to USGA specs all the time.  They've done it on at least a half dozen courses where we consult -- even when no one at the club had brought up the subject.
They've even put in print that greens ought to be rebuilt every twenty years."

TomD:

When the USGA Green section recommends that some club rip up some green and rebuild it to USGA specs, why do you suppose they make that recommendation?

Do you suppose it's so the golf course can defend itself better in a playability-sense against scoring et al or do you suppose they make that recommendation so the maintenance department can grow grass better and maintain the green with less agronomic problems?  

Let me ask this in another way. Have you ever seen the USGA Green Section recommend that some old original green that happens to have a very healthy and sustainable stand of grass and that drains well etc be ripped up and replaced by a USGA spec green? If you have seen that happened it would help if you'd tell us where that happened, because I for one, am having something of a hard time believing it.

I should probably also point you to some of the articles by the Green Section (within the Green Section website) on the dangers of trying to increase putting green speed on the slopes and contours of some of the old green designs.

[George Pazin]

I think I understand Mike's point and agree with it completely.

The extreme difficulty of the course (almost regardless of the reason) leads to more situations where the golfer really has to think and execute to minimize his score, far more so than the normal Tour setup.

[TEPaul]

Mike Golden said;
   
     "I would like to see the ball and equipment dialed back for the tour as much as anyone else-I rarely watch tournament golf anymore because I find it boring and repetitive, but if you think it's as simple as the USGA changing the specificiations then you are living in a dream world.  The industry has become too large and changes such as that would have an enormous economic impact on all of the equipment manufacturers.  They are not going down without a fight.
     I see nothing wrong with, for a brief period of time, turning a course like WKW into an examination of the top player's nerves, course management skills, and ability to play under pressure and stress.  If you do, then don't watch the tournament, just as I ignore almost all of the others during the year.  We play a completely different game than these guys anyway."

Mike Golden:

Those are two honest and fairly accurate statements, in my opinion.

As a David Moriarty seems constantly intent on maintaining, the Winged Foot set-up, and all the other "tough" USGA set-ups are not necessarily completely a result of technology improvement and distance explosion in the last ten or so years or otherwise why would the USGA have set-up WF under Sandy Tatum years ago during the last WF Open into what's become known as the "Massacre of WF" when Irwin won at +7? There was a very interesting piece on that yestersay during the Sunday telecast. That was before the equipment technology explosion and distance increase and was obviously done more for philosophical reasons and less to counter technology and distance increase or some failure on the part of the USGA to control same---as D. Moriarty constantly claims without qualification.

On the other hand, I would not necessarily agree with you that the manufacturers will not consider without a fight I&B spec changes that may perhaps alter the distances power players hit the ball in the future. If the manufacturers were intent on resisting that potential distance limitation or reduction at all costs then why do you suppose they have all agreed to submit prototype golf balls to the USGA (on the USGA's request) that go 15 and 25 yards less far? If the manufacturers were intent on resisting any distant limitations or reductions on power hitters in the future logic would seem to say they probably would've refused the USGA's request that they make those prototype balls and submit them for USGA Tech Center analysis.

Obviously, it's not that difficult to understand how such a process would not be one of economic danger to the manufacturers.

If, for instance, the USGA, as a result of testing these new "prototype" balls, does happen to put a new "reg" on the golf ball involving the minimum amount of spin rate a "conforming" golf ball can have (something that has never been done before by the R&A/USGA, by the way) that would effectively render just about every golf ball on the market and "conforming" TODAY as "non-conforming" at some point in the future.

That is most definitely NOT a prescription for economic danger for the manufacturers. It is also a potential limitation or even reduction on the distances power players hit the ball today.

 
 
 

[Forrest Richardson]

Tommy — My full comment was "You can re-build a green exactly the same as it existed. Granted, this is seldom a reality. But, it can be done if the right peope, are involved.

And, I might point out, that you can keep topdressing a green and allow nature and time to fiddle with the surface until one day you can have a ideal green that an arm-chair enthusiast will defend to the death by saying, "That is a perfect example of _________________'s work — it goes to prove that re-building a green is a terrible thing to do — could you imagine trying to get all the subtle rolls and breaks back in a classic green like this? — I can hear __________________ now saying, 'Don't touch my green' — Yep, they don't build them like this any more."

[Mike_Golden]

Mike Golden:

Those are two honest and fairly accurate statements, in my opinion.

As a David Moriarty seems constantly intent on maintaining, the Winged Foot set-up, and all the other "tough" USGA set-ups are not necessarily completely a result of technology improvement and distance explosion in the last ten or so years or otherwise why would the USGA have set-up WF under Sandy Tatum years ago during the last WF Open into what's become known as the "Massacre of WF" when Irwin won at +7? There was a very interesting piece on that yestersay during the Sunday telecast. That was before the equipment technology explosion and distance increase and was obviously done more for philosophical reasons and less to counter technology and distance increase or some failure on the part of the USGA to control same---as D. Moriarty constantly claims without qualification.

On the other hand, I would not necessarily agree with you that the manufacturers will not consider without a fight I&B spec changes that may perhaps alter the distances power players hit the ball in the future. If the manufacturers were intent on resisting that potential distance limitation of reduction at all costs then why do you suppose they have all agreed to submit prototype golf balls to the USGA (on the USGA's request) that go 15 and 25 yards less far? If the manufacturers were intent on resisting any distant limitations or reductions on power hitters in the future logic would seem to say they probably would've refused the USGA's request that they make those prototype balls and submit them for USGA Tech Center analysis.

Obviously, it's not that difficult to understand how such a process would not be one of economic danger to the manufacturers.

If, for instance, the USGA, as a result of testing these new "prototype" balls, does happen to put a new "reg" on the golf ball involving the minimum amount of spin rate a "conforming" golf ball can have (something that has never been done before by the R&A/USGA, by the way) that would effectively render just about every golf ball on the market and "conforming" TODAY as "non-conforming" at some point in the future.

That is most definitely NOT a prescription for economic danger for the manufacturers. It is also a potential limitation or even reduction on the distances power players hit the ball today.

TE Paul,

Well said-we're on the same page here.  My reference to economic issues for the manufacturers was mainly based on the way that most equipment is sold today, the 'the most players on tour use this, use that, this ball won the Masters, etc, etc, etc.'  Even though the better players mostly use equipment and balls made specifically for their games (which we don't have access to) this is not something commonly known;  rolling the ball and/or equipment back for the tour players would definitely impact this marketing aspect.  One of the most enlightening comments about this subject I've ever heard was that the tour players not only get the best drivers but get to pick from a large number of them (20-25 at a time) so they can get the one or two that give them the most distance and control.   This came from someone involved on the Tour on a regular basis so it can be taken as the absolute truth.

[Geoffrey Childs]

I'll come in here briefly to support Mike and Tom's views on the setup at WF.  

David- if you were the committee chair in charge of setting up Winged Foot for this year's US Open championship how specifically would you have prepared the golf course for play to identify the best player? You are confined to allowing balls and clubs on the conforming list. Thanks

[Bill_McBride]

Wasn't '74 at Winged Foot West "retribution" for Johnny Miller's 63 at Oakmont the previous year?  Or at least making sure no one embarrassed the club like Miller did!

[JESII]

Do you really think Oakmont was/is embarrassed by Johnny Miller's 63?

[DMoriarty]

Geoffrey Childs asked:

David- if you were the committee chair in charge of setting up Winged Foot for this year's US Open championship how specifically would you have prepared the golf course for play to identify the best player? You are confined to allowing balls and clubs on the conforming list. Thanks

The limitation on your question (confining me to the conforming list) shows that you entirely missed my point.   If the USGA has no choice but to take the course to absurd lengths, fairway widths, rough, etc. this is because they have failed to address the equipment issue.    In other words, the USGA has handcuffed itself by failing to address the equipment problem.  

Regardless, I’ll answer your question.  Widen the fairways so as to bring into play the approach angles which were intended to be in play.   So that the golfer must actually try to position himself to get the best angle into the wicked greens.  As for the rough they could do all sorts of things, all of which include getting rid of the graduated cut.    Cut it to create tough but still possible recovery shots with flyer lies.  Cut it all down so an off line ball would get further offline and eventually blocked by tries.  Quit watering and maintaining it all together so missing the fairway would become a crap shoot.   Whatever they do, they should bring back in the possibility of the golfer doing something spectacular or stupid.  As it was, generally the only guys who had this option were the ones who missed badly enough so as to clear the rough.  

Mike Golden Said:

Actually, David, my point was (and is) that these guys are so good that if you really want the true champion they need to be stressed enough to bring the best golfer that weekend to the top.  A normal tour setup doesn't do that, nor will any golf architecture (at least for the top pros).  If you had ever played with one  of the touring pros, even someone at the bottom of the money list, it would be evident.

I am not convinced that no architecture can do it . . . Riviera always seems to hold its own against the players in January, and it is usually playing soft.   The greens at WFW seemed pretty extraordinary, with golfers failing to get close even after having to repeatedly lay up.   They had to set the pins in easy places on Sunday just to keep their target score in target.  They were not going to go PGATour low even with fairways cut at reasonable widths.  

 But if you are correct that no architecture can do it, then lets quit having the USOpen at these great courses.   If the architecture is irrelevant, then let’s not pretend otherwise.   Showing the general public a course like Winged Foot playing like that only reinforces a bunch of nonsense about what makes a good course and good architecture.    Just find a so-so long course where they can grow rough to their heart's content and have the Open there.  Move the tourney to Torrey every year!    Make it clear that this isn’t about the best players challenging the best courses, but rather about  “stressing the players”  so that only the best will be able to survive.    Or let the USGA build their own “Stress Test Courses,” one in each region.  That way they could take their “graduated” penalty concept to its full fruition.  

I would like to see the ball and equipment dialed back for the tour as much as anyone else-I rarely watch tournament golf anymore because I find it boring and repetitive, but if you think it's as simple as the USGA changing the specificiations then you are living in a dream world.  The industry has become too large and changes such as that would have an enormous economic impact on all of the equipment manufacturers.  They are not going down without a fight.

I never watch golf unless the course is interesting, and that only happens a handful of times a year.   As for how easy the problem is to fix, who’s fault is that?   The USGA ignored their own tech people when they let the COR go above .77 and they have had their heads at least partially in the sand ever since.   They have put themselves in the position they are in, and the longer they wait the harder the solution becomes.  As for the equipment manufacturers, they are not golf, and don’t have the same interest as the golfers or the courses, so the USGA should step back and reconsider just who they represent.   Let the equipment manufacturers fight.   They will lose.   So long as the Masters, and USGA are on board it can be done.   Surely the USGA can control the equipment at their own tournaments.  

I see nothing wrong with, for a brief period of time, turning a course like WKW into an examination of the top player's nerves, course management skills, and ability to play under pressure and stress.  If you do, then don't watch the tournament, just as I ignore almost all of the others during the year.  We play a completely different game than these guys anyway.

I see a lot wrong with it, but little of it has anything to do with my viewing pleasure.  I actually enjoyed watching the tournament if only to see the few guys who ended up on trampled ground and imagining how the course would play under real golf conditions.   My concerns are about the health and future of the game of golf and its great courses.   If the USGA wants to test the best players at the best courses, then they should do that.  As it is now they have taken the real course out of play.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()