What would be wrong with this scenario?

[Joe Hancock]

After Tiger's post-play comments, I was struck by how much he referred to what "they" did to the course that changed how it played each round.

Would it be so bad to start the tournament with the course in a position, agronomically and playability-wise that "they" wouldn't have to change maintenance/ set-up routines during the tournament? Why do they need to double cut/ roll one day, then make the players figure out what the hand of man did to the course the next day during their round of play?

It would be nice to not hear about what the human factor is in the set-up, just let the players figure out what changes mother nature brings to the table each day.

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

That is an interesting observation, Joe.  I sure don't know the answer to that question in terms of whether the 'hand of man' being applied between rounds keeps the margins of green speed, ball rollout on FWs closer to consistent, or more intentionally disparate as a matter of tricking it up to frustrate them.  I'm going to lean towards the probability that they are doing what they do overnight handwatering areas, and rolling or not rolling to try to be consistent.  I don't know if what they do is counter-productive, or what they do is agronomically sound to achieve their goals. 

If their motivations are pure, to try to achieve consistency, is that a proper goal for a fair tournament to all the players from morning to afternoon rounds?  Should it be left to vagueries of mother nature and how that can be very inconsistent? 

If they are doing things maintenance wise overnight purposely for the sole purpose of throwing the players off their game and how they self calibrate their estimation of F&F and how greens react from round to round, my personal feeling is to be disappointed at that mentality.  I doubt that is what they are up to. 

I'm interested to see what others think here.

[corey miller]

Like RJ, I don't know the answer but do feel the changes we are talking about influence the play of the hole and all players the same.

I am more bothered by movements of tees and pins indiscriminately once a tournament has started.  I feel Mike Davis should let it be known what areas will be used prior to the tournament.  How do we "know" the final round tee positions (if not announced prior to the tourney) are not placed in a manner to favor the long hitter?

[Joe Hancock]

To clarify my post, I'm not talking about hole locations or tee location type stuff. I'm talking about hand watering, rolling, etc. select greens or other parts of the course in the name of uniformity, and here's my underlying issue with it all:

It should be, in my opinion, that the players' ability to figure out the course, and subsequently, how to play it, is by solving the problem of what the course is, or isn't. The intellect of the player should be their 15th club, so to speak, if they are so blessed to think that way. I think the golfer should determine if a green will be faster or slower than the others because it sits in a hollow and doesn't get windblown, and vice versa. I think the golfer should be able to determine if the grain is speeding up, or slowing down their putt(not that grain really exists anymore). I think the golfer should know how to play a sand shot based on the dampness, dryness or texture of the sand....not because it is imported from Ohio to every tourney course  so it always plays the same and is whiter than snow itself(thankfully, this isn't the case at Muirfield). I think that changes in weather between morning rounds and afternoon rounds are what they are and should be part of the golf challenge.

In the end, we keep hearing about what the human input is in an attempt to create fair, uniform, predictable conditions for all.

Joe

[Andrew Brown]

I am more bothered by movements of tees and pins indiscriminately once a tournament has started.  I feel Mike Davis should let it be known what areas will be used prior to the tournament.  How do we "know" the final round tee positions (if not announced prior to the tourney) are not placed in a manner to favor the long hitter?

Corey,

As with most tournaments, I imagine there is a notice to players. They will be informed if the tournament committee has plans to (maybe) use different teeing area, and usually they are given the opportunity to practice from these areas in their practice rounds.

I can assure you movement of pins and tees is far from indiscriminate. The committee has a plan that is detailed, but flexible going into a championship.

Joe,

By the sounds of it you want a more "let nature take its course" during a tournament. That could be interesting...

[Wade Whitehead]

Let the committee set up the course for Round One.

Then, for the next three days, let the top 18 players in the tournament each set up a hole.  The leader picks a hole, dictates its setup, and so on until the players playing best have established the course golf they "want" to play.

WW

[Joe Hancock]

Andrew,

Letting nature take it's course is a concise way to say what I would prefer. Thank you!

Wade,

What you proposed isn't too far from what we already have. The pro's whining influence is exactly why we strive for perfect uniformity throughout the course.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe,

I think the answer might center around a lack of trust that Mother Nature will co-operate.
Or, that there's a reluctance to roll the dice with Mother Nature.

Major tournaments like the course to "peak" on the final day, hence there's almost a reverse preparation process.

With the stakes/financials so high, would anyone just leave the course as it is ?

Would you really maintain a hands off policy with no prior preparation ?
I wouldn't.

When you're presenting a challenge to the best players in the world in an effort to identify the one playing the best on one week in the year, I don't think you can leave that presentation to the whims of Mother Nature.