More than Donald Ross intended

[Michael Morandi]

That is what John Bodenhamer, USGA Championships director, said about Pinehurst. He also said the greens will average  13 on the stimp. Apart from adjusting length in recognition of increased distances off the tee, why does the USGA make the course “more than Donald Ross intended”?

[Mark_Fine]

The U.S. Open is about identifying the best golfer.  It is not about identifying the best golf architect.  It is the architect’s job as well as those setting up the course to present an adequate challenge to help identify the best golfer.  To expect a course that is 100 years old to provide that challenge without some alterations is silly.  We all know by now (I hope) that the greens at #2 (as great as they are) would not be recognized by Ross let alone having them roll at 13!  Enjoy the Championship for what it is but let’s not get carried away that Donald Ross had the brilliance and vision to see 100 years into the future to still provide the ultimate test for the best golfers in the world without any changes to his designs.  This is not a knock on Ross or restorations as I am a big believer that many courses are worthy of preservation and restoration but for testing the best in the world, it is pretty obvious some changes are appropriate.  Length is but one clear necessity that we have debated ad nauseam.  Change the ball and maybe the changes can be less extensive (no pun intended)

[Tim Martin]

Length, green speeds and height of cut for fairways and green surrounds would be “More than Donald Ross intended.”

[Ben Hollerbach]

That is what John Bodenhamer, USGA Championships director, said about Pinehurst. He also said the greens will average  13 on the stimp. Apart from adjusting length in recognition of increased distances off the tee, why does the USGA make the course “more than Donald Ross intended”?

Because Donald Ross could not have foreseen the impact modern golf equipment would have on his design intent.

[Bruce Katona]

Oh yee of little faith.  As my friend Archie Struthers said in nother thread - "looking at the weather forecast, let's see how the greens run on the weekend".


Double diget rounds under par on Day 1 - that won't be permitted to continue as there was still a bit of moisture left in the greens yesterday. 


I'm loving the leaderboard with Rory, Cantley, Brooks, Bryson all up there, mixing up the cheering for PGA v LIV.


I have faith at the end with the temperatures and lack of moisture -2 will win for sure.

[cary lichtenstein]

The stipmeter was 6 or 7 at best, not 13 which is a joke

[Michael Morandi]

The U.S. Open is about identifying the best golfer.  It is not about identifying the best golf architect.  It is the architect’s job as well as those setting up the course to present an adequate challenge to help identify the best golfer.  To expect a course that is 100 years old to provide that challenge without some alterations is silly.  We all know by now (I hope) that the greens at #2 (as great as they are) would not be recognized by Ross let alone having them roll at 13!  Enjoy the Championship for what it is but let’s not get carried away that Donald Ross had the brilliance and vision to see 100 years into the future to still provide the ultimate test for the best golfers in the world without any changes to his designs.  This is not a knock on Ross or restorations as I am a big believer that many courses are worthy of preservation and restoration but for testing the best in the world, it is pretty obvious some changes are appropriate.  Length is but one clear necessity that we have debated ad nauseam.  Change the ball and maybe the changes can be less extensive (no pun intended)

I’m all for changing the ball. But I have an innocent and possibly ignorant question: have Shinny , Oakmont and Winged Foot required major changes, either in length or otherwise, to still be US OPEN worthy? And keep architectural intent?

[archie_struthers]

Oh yee of little faith.  As my friend Archie Struthers said in nother thread - "looking at the weather forecast, let's see how the greens run on the weekend".

Oh , it's coming Bruce the heat is coming at Pinehurst this weekend

[Tim_Weiman]

The U.S. Open is about identifying the best golfer.  It is not about identifying the best golf architect.  It is the architect’s job as well as those setting up the course to present an adequate challenge to help identify the best golfer.  To expect a course that is 100 years old to provide that challenge without some alterations is silly.  We all know by now (I hope) that the greens at #2 (as great as they are) would not be recognized by Ross let alone having them roll at 13!  Enjoy the Championship for what it is but let’s not get carried away that Donald Ross had the brilliance and vision to see 100 years into the future to still provide the ultimate test for the best golfers in the world without any changes to his designs.  This is not a knock on Ross or restorations as I am a big believer that many courses are worthy of preservation and restoration but for testing the best in the world, it is pretty obvious some changes are appropriate.  Length is but one clear necessity that we have debated ad nauseam.  Change the ball and maybe the changes can be less extensive (no pun intended)

I’m all for changing the ball. But I have an innocent and possibly ignorant question: have Shinny , Oakmont and Winged Foot required major changes, either in length or otherwise, to still be US OPEN worthy? And keep architectural intent?

Michael,


As I am sure you know, changes have been made to other U.S. Open sites to prepare for the tournament. I played Shinnecock when it was being prepared and walked Pebble Beach just two weeks before the tournament. As great as those courses are, most golfers would not enjoy playing them in those conditions.


Do the preparations mean the USGA wasn’t faithful to architectural intent?


I don’t think so. As Mark Fine suggested, it is all about testing the most elite, extremely talented golfers.


Honestly, it has been about 40 years since I played Pinehurst #2. I remember loving the 5th hole. A far more capable golfer then, reaching the green in regulation was no problem, but I recognized the danger of that raised green. I could see a double bogey or worse was lurking.


#3, though not presenting any length challenge, also stood out for the same reason.


But, back then (early 1980s) I don’t remember anyone suggesting the greens weren’t consistent with Donald Ross’s intent.


Tim

[Matthew Rose]

This has been going around on social. I bet Oakmont at 9.8 seemed ridiculous then.

[Matt MacIver]

I wish someone(s) would update the speeds at these same courses in 2024, say the last day of the Club Championship. 

[Peter Galea]

I may be wrong, but weren't those greens at #2 originally clay, and sprinkled with sand to slow them down?