News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
'13 v. '14
« on: June 16, 2014, 09:15:08 AM »
The difference between the last two year's u.s, opens could not be more divergent.

From a total tv viewers perspective the biggest or most fundamental difference was how the winners won. Second being the importance every revolution of the golf ball mattered more at Pinehurst than it did at the shrouded in stupid rough (nod to Chip Oat) at Merion.

In '13 Justin Rose hung on to survive an onslaught of contenders who all failed to keep their lower scores. In other words, he won by default and how he played the 72nd hole.
 Versus '14 where the wire to wire winner played beautifully all 72 holes.

It's no secret that freedom is an inherit part of compelling golf. The thrill of recovery shots were on excellent display in '14. The varied situations where those recovery shots came from, and, how they were played made for much more exciting sport.

What's your observations?
 
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Wade Whitehead

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: '13 v. '14
« Reply #1 on: June 16, 2014, 09:44:39 AM »
Are you saying Rose backed in to a win at Merion?

WW

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: '13 v. '14
« Reply #2 on: June 16, 2014, 09:49:16 AM »
I think Big Red is merely saying Rose was the last man standing.

These types of victories - Kaymer's, that is - always take a little bit of time to digest, for me at least.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: '13 v. '14
« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2014, 10:16:21 AM »
Adam, it was the play - not the venue that diverged.  We tend to obsess over the golf course and set-up but the fact of the matter is one guy holes out in fewer strokes than everybody else, whether by attrition or sheer brilliance.  Neither is lesser of a champion.  But for Kaymer's brilliance, yesterday's winner would have been by attrition - it was rather pathetic to watch the boys limp home with their tales between their legs, losing the inability to hole even the shortest of putts.

I remain convinced that the Merion I walked last year is as good a golf course as i've seen or played - all it needed was a little off the ears to be perfect.  I must say that Pinehurst has moved to the top of my list of courses I'd like to see IF it remains as presented in the championship.   Both were compelling venues and likely are today as well.

Respectfully,

Bogey

Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Patrick_Mucci

Re: '13 v. '14
« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2014, 10:27:41 AM »
Michael,

The venue dictates play.

Merion set a terrible sample for golf, championing narrow fairways and impossible rough in order to protect par.

Pinehurst championed wide fairways and no rough

CAVEAT

I'm in favor of natural Sandy areas with some grasses sprinkled about, but NOT stemmed plants.
Let's not forget that stemmed plants grow and multiply, unless money is spent to remove or thin them out.

Seminole gets it right on vast expanses of sandy areas flanking fairways.

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: '13 v. '14
« Reply #5 on: June 16, 2014, 10:34:59 AM »
Patrick, Kaymer would have trounced the field anywhere in the world. 

Both Merion and Pinehurst fit well with their neighborhoods and indigenous environs. 

Par can be protected in many ways - why not alternatively use them all?

Call your pal Tom Paul right this minute and let him know that his "big world theory" is nothing but garbage. 

Thank goodness Kaymer excelled.  Can you image the posts if Pinehurst had followed Michael Campbell with Erik Compton?

Bogey
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Brent Hutto

Re: '13 v. '14
« Reply #6 on: June 16, 2014, 10:51:05 AM »
It seems to me this year's setup of #2, by negating the rough and by playing so firm and fast as to negate the extra length of the course relative to its par (not that they pushed the tees back to the limit anyway), basically clarified the challenge. You're going to miss these greens. You're going to hit and not hold these greens. You're going to see chips, pitches, bunker shots, putts, everything rolling off these greens. And you're going to have nerve-wracking tricky up-and-down opportunities from within 30 yards of the green much more often than you're going to have wicked fast two-putt par opportunities.

So what Martin Kaymer did was simplify and clarify his game to match. He went all in with the putter. Putter from just off the green, putter from good lies, bad lies, sparse lies. Putter in situations that made the NBC expert commentators question his manhood. Putter from places even I wouldn't use a putter (and I use putter from everywhere).

Like any simple, head-on tactic for meeting a clear-cut challenge it comes down to execution. Lo and behold a pretty good putter and terrible (by Tour standards) "scrambler" just whittled away hole after hole on the scorecard by hitting his fade tee shots, hitting one of his fade long irons and the putter, putter, putter until the ball is holed. Now the fact is, if he had putted just like an average Tour player from 6, 8, 10 feet all week he'd have been slugging it out with the +1/E/-1 contingent down the closing holes. But heck if Retief Goosen had putted like a mere mortal at Shinnecock someone else would have won that one.

We know majors come down to putting more often than not. Kaymer just took that to another level and decided if you've got to win majors with your putter then best to get started sooner rather than later. He became the ultimate hedgehog...he just needed to know how to do one thing and he did that thing very, very, very well. Imagine how much simpler his mental and emotional process was every time he missed a green over the weekend. He already knew what shot he was going to play (with very few exceptions) so there's no doubt, no back and forth with the caddie, no five minutes of practice strokes trying to find just the right feel with a wide-open wedge. It was just keep doing the exact same thing for four days in a row....

...and keep making those 8-footers for par. It was brilliant. If the course had slammed 4" deep Bermuda up to within inches of the putting surfaces then presumably he would have needed a steady diet of mini-explosion lob wedge gouges instead of off-the-green putts. There have been plenty of US Opens won by executing those shots very, very, very well. I enjoyed seeing someone get a chance to use a somewhat novel tactic that in fact is as old as the game itself.

P.S. Remember when Todd Hamilton won his Open at Troon (wasnt' it)? He would hit that 16-degree hybrid off the tee, then hit the same hybrid again and if he missed a green he's chip/putt with the same hybrid. I love it when someone pulls out a "hedgehog" tactic like that and executes it to perfection. I think it's cool.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: '13 v. '14
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2014, 12:12:15 PM »
I love the Pinehurst #2 set up.  Merion looked beautiful at times, but it was kinda goofy golf in terms of it level of punishment.  I thought the guys could actually "play golf" on #2 and try different things, given the freedom they had.  And isn't that what good golf is all about, freedom and options?  I think it is.

And with all the freedom and "lack of penalty" for hitting it in the rough/native, how many people broke par?  3.  And two were just 1 under.

I think Pinehurst #2 is one of the best courses in the world...and the set up let the course play as it was intended to play.  And it held its own versus the best of the best.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: '13 v. '14
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2014, 12:46:44 PM »
Well said Mac.

In reality the greens were receptive 3 out of four days. The only time they were really humming was Saturday. The difference between fiery (as people were describing it, even after the rains Thursday night) and humming, is big enough to matter on every bounce and roll of the ball. The smallest tuff of grass mattered, as the super slo motion cameras illustrated on more than one occasion.

What #2 did was identify the one player aware enough to play the course optimally given the circumstances.

Nobody should confuse anything I've written on Merion's architecture, my comments was only about it's maintenance meld for the 13 open.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Ulrich Mayring

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: '13 v. '14 New
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2014, 06:16:42 PM »
Remember how Kaymer won the Players on #17? He played a so-so chip and then made an unbelievable putt. So what's wrong with playing to your strength? He would be stupid not to.

If the course gives him options, he'll select the shot he's best at. Setting up a course so that different shots are possible doesn't ensure that we see all those different shots from one player. It ensures that several players can play to their strengths and hopefully compete on a more level playing field.

Ulrich
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 06:19:42 PM by Ulrich Mayring »
Golf Course Exposé (300+ courses reviewed), Golf CV (how I keep track of 'em)