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.


Josh Stevens

  • Karma: +0/-0
Maybe not the death knell, but there will be a backlash and that may raise the question of whether this was a step too far

Love it or hate it, there is always the issue that the traditional US Open set up was distinctive.  It may have been boring, but it was distinctive, and thus winning the career grand slam meant something as one had to win in such a wide variety of conditions. There is some substance to the argument that we need that one nasty dictatorial slog once a year.

Pinehurst was great as being a nice middle ground, but to my eye, this is just a bit too goofy, and I think sponsors and others will not want it repeated

Kevin Lynch

  • Karma: +0/-0
The main problem with all these discussions is that no one should ever look towards the U.S. Open to lead an attitude change for the average golfer.  The USGA always seems to push the envelope a little too far to dictate a score.  This extreme setup tends to override the general message. 


If the USGA would accept that the best golfers in the world can be identified even at -8 or -12 (like Augusta), then perhaps people may have been more focused on the fun that could be had with firmer conditions and more creative recovery shots.  There could have been a moment to show that just "hitting the wide fairway" didn't make for an easy approach if the green is contoured well.  Instead, in protecting against extremely talented golfers by resorting to extremes in conditioning, the USGA drowns out its own moderate message of less inputs and more playability.



You can work your way towards "lighter shades of green" without having to resort to burnt out brown.


Daryl David

  • Karma: +0/-0
I would not lump sponsors in with those that might be unhappy. Fox is doing record viewing numbers. (Although, I wonder is Neilson tracks whether the viewer has the sound muted 😃)

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is anybody else amused with the very green look on the computer animated videos being used to describe the holes to TV viewers?  When the animation stops and an actual view of the course is shown, there's a very rough visual transition.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Is anybody else amused with the very green look on the computer animated videos being used to describe the holes to TV viewers?  When the animation stops and an actual view of the course is shown, there's a very rough visual transition.


I'm just finding it incredibly ironic that I've never seen so many sprinklers potentially in a player's lines ;) ;D
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
That is definitional autonomic irony, as a cynic would suggest the course is watered with wind ex bottles!
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

William_G

  • Karma: +0/-0
I've had two texts from clients this week hoping that the courses we are building will "not look as bad as this US Open course".  So, I'll weigh in to say that firm and fast is always an uphill battle.


However, I don't see how Chambers Bay could be the "death knell" of a movement that has never really taken hold to start with.  There are a small percentage of courses in the U.S. that maintain their courses in a more sustainable fashion.  They will always be in the minority, because there are plenty of people who judge golf courses by how they look rather than how they play.

Supporting fact:  in judging the success of turfgrass trials, each variety of grass is rated according to how green and uniform it is under different stresses.

it's too bad your clients are like that

It's all about the golf!

Steve Okula

  • Karma: +0/-0
I've had two texts from clients this week hoping that the courses we are building will "not look as bad as this US Open course".  So, I'll weigh in to say that firm and fast is always an uphill battle.


However, I don't see how Chambers Bay could be the "death knell" of a movement that has never really taken hold to start with.  There are a small percentage of courses in the U.S. that maintain their courses in a more sustainable fashion.  They will always be in the minority, because there are plenty of people who judge golf courses by how they look rather than how they play.


Supporting fact:  in judging the success of turfgrass trials, each variety of grass is rated according to how green and uniform it is under different stresses.

Appearances and playing qualities are not entirely unrelated to each other. Uniform surfaces provide a more consistent lie and roll more smoothly, and green grass tends to be more uniform than brown and drought stressed turf.

Since golf began, people have strived to make the playing surface as perfect as possible, and that will never change.
The small wheel turns by the fire and rod,
the big wheel turns by the grace of God.