Oakmont and rough

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I should probably stay out of this one because thanks to an enjoyable Irish holiday I wasn't able to join folks like George P, John V and Margaret C seeing Oakmont first hand.

But, I'm curious about your comment that Oakmont’s conditions “exceeded the ability of the field”. Like Tom Paul, I’d like to know exactly what this means. Do you have an objective criteria to make such an assessment? If so, what is it?  Is it based on the players’ scores? If so, what would the distribution of scores have to be to know that the conditions were just right?

P.S. I have no worries about double standards. USGA set ups are fine for me for either a US Open or a US Amateur. The problem isn’t USGA set ups. The problem comes when other majors mimic their approach or when this style of golf is applied to casual golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Kane,

There is a difference between "comments" and thorough, intelligent evaluation.  "Comments" are a dime a dozen.

Having a broader and deeper data base usually allows one to make a more intelligent analysis.

Forrest Richardson,

I believe that Charles Blair MacDonald was an exceptional player, and he made the comment.  Donald Ross was a good player as well.

Tim Weiman,

When the best amateurs in the world can't make dent on par, I think you could say that the golf course was prepared beyond the ability of the field.

[JohnV]

Tim Weiman,

When the best amateurs in the world can't make dent on par, I think you could say that the golf course was prepared beyond the ability of the field.

Or that par is a meaningless number.

See the average score of the qualifiers vs the course rating from my previous post.  They beat the course rating which is defined as the average score of the qualifiers for match play in the US Amateur.  So either the definition is wrong or they played better than expected.

[CHrisB]

When the best amateurs in the world can't make dent on par, I think you could say that the golf course was prepared beyond the ability of the field.

Patrick,
Would you say then, that in a typical U.S. Open setup, on which the best professionals in the world can't make dent on par, the golf course is prepared beyond the ability of the field?

If so, do you object with the typical U.S. Open setup?

Would you say that Royal St. George's was prepared beyond the ability of the field (the winner was -1)?

If so, do you object with the setup of the British Open this year?

[rgkeller]

Does Oakmont put the course ratings of the individual holes on their scorecards or do they print the par for each hole?

Why is the "course rating" meaningful and "par" not meaningful?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris B,

Yes
Yes
Don't know, never played RSG
Don't know, nevef played RSG

[CHrisB]

Patrick,
We agree on all four answers!  

While I think that the USGA is a little too focused on protecting par, I don't mind seeing par win or contend, as long as the course has not been set up specifically with protecting par in mind. I'd much rather see weather and the pressure of the event prevent low scoring than strictly course setup.

[JohnV]

Chris and Patrick, are you saying that if the USGA didn't change the par on a couple of holes from 5 to 4 and the winning score became -9 instead of -1 at a US Open  you wouldn't have a problem with their setup?

rgkeller, par can be any number.  It can be changed at the whim of the club or committee in charge of the competition (as it was at Oakmont.)  The Course Rating is determined by a standard formula.

Par is a mind game that you guys and many others fall for regularly.  The USGA plays this game on the pros all the time and they fall for it.  They feel that if it says 4 on the card, you have to get there in 2 shots and they whine and make bigger numbers than if you called it 5 on the card.  In the end, 280 wins, not even par, -4 or -8.

[rgkeller]

If "par" were not a meaningful number to the members at Oakmont, they would not spend so much effort ensuring that no tournament player who plays Oakmont can achieve it.

In tournaments Oakmont resorts to "tricks" such as a wall of rough at the back and sides of greens to protect par.

It is Oakmont's powers-that-be that have fallen for the concept of par and, in their defense of that "arbitrary number," they disguise the intrinsic excellence of a great course.

[George Pazin]

I was under the impression that the USGA, not Oakmont, make all decisions regarding setup for USGA championships.

[rgkeller]

I was under the impression that the USGA, not Oakmont, make all decisions regarding setup for USGA championships.

Yeah, right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

I don't believe it is a strictly unilateral decision on the part of the USGA, as you do

I have seen clubs prepare courses to their satisfaction as well.

[JohnV]

The USGA can only get so much out of a club.  They don't actually go out and set the heights on the mowers.  Most clubs and superintendents work very closely with the USGA agronomists to get things the way they want it.  I heard no complaints from anyone associated with the USGA this past week so I think they were very happy with the setup for the Amateur.

[George Pazin]

Thanks for the clarification, John.

Nice mature responses from the NY metro area. Unlike some people, I'm not afraid to be told my impressions are incorrect and appreciate when someone with knowledge clarifies things.

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Pazin,

That's because you're so used to it !  

[George Pazin]

Now that was funny!