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.


Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
The irony of the USGA
« on: June 20, 2004, 10:27:12 PM »
Same bunch who totally lost control of the ball are reduced to tricking up a phenomenal golf course to "protect par", whatever that means. Shame on them. Stop the darned ball already.

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2004, 12:25:20 AM »
reduced to tricking up a phenomenal golf course to "protect par", whatever that means. Shame on them. Stop the darned ball already.

Jeff:
I agree that they need to stop the ball but they also need to stop tricking up the courses.  Just about every major classical course has undergone serious changes in the last few years to accomidate the USGA.  Medinah and Torrey Pines to extreme as examples.

Joel_Stewart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2004, 01:04:28 AM »
Shouldn't Tom Meeks be fired?   Did anyone see his interview on the Golf Channel?

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2004, 01:09:21 AM »
Joel, He is retiring.

Paul Richards

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2004, 06:56:43 AM »
jeff

This is exactly the point I made on another thread.

In order to 'protect par' at Shinnecock (and Olympia Fields and ....) has reduced the courses to 20-yard-wide fairways, 6-inch gnarly rough, greens as hard as cement, and pins tucked 3-feet from edges of greens.

This can only go on so long since 'these guys ARE good'!

If the USGA would only get the clue that NOW is the time to go to a TOURNAMENT BALL, we wouldn't have to see the silliness in our national championship that was the seventh green at Shinnecock on Saturday.

 :P :-[ :'(
"Something has to change, otherwise the never-ending arms race that benefits only a few manufacturers will continue to lead to longer courses, narrower fairways, smaller greens, more rough, more expensive rounds, and other mechanisms that will leave golf's future in doubt." -  TFOG

Alfie

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2004, 07:56:25 AM »
Here we go again....and rightly so !
All these comments would be better thrust at your USGA and our R & A en mass in an effort to resolve the biggest headache golf has ever had !
The USGA have now taken it upon themselves to play the part of Mother Nature at SH 7 ? Some get a little water, while others go thirsty ?

Roll back the ball for ALL !
But I'll compromise with the introduction of a Comp Ball...reluctantly !

Action Group required ?

Alfie Ward

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2004, 08:18:48 AM »
Same bunch who totally lost control of the ball are reduced to tricking up a phenomenal golf course to "protect par", whatever that means. Shame on them. Stop the darned ball already.

Number 7 on Saturday was a real joke.  Did anyone see the interview where David Fay said the green was rolled inadvertently.  The announcers made reference to it but I didn't see it.
How does the USGA inadvertently roll a green.  We had a USGA Championship last year and not one blade of grass was touched without the USGA agronomist present.

Fairways and Greens,
Dave

NAF

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2004, 08:26:26 AM »
Frank Hannigan on the USGA Shinny setup

Thoughts on what happened at Shinnecock
June 20, 2004

I don't know the answer, but I can certainly pose the question: Is it worthwhile doing to Shinnecock Hills what was done last week in order to achieve high scores in a US Open?

The dominating fact of the set-up was no water. This made for an over-the-top brick-hard course with pinched-in fairways, much too narrow at 25 yards, linked to greens that were the firmest in a U.S. Open since the USGA's Sandy Tatum blessed a set-up at Winged Foot in l974 resulting in a winning score of 7-over by Hale Irwin. At Winged Foot, though, it was possible to drive the ball into the fairways.

On the other hand, it's wonderful to see them suffer, isn't it? Admit it. They are wealthy young people, only a handful of whom have ever earned a dime in their lives other than from the hitting of golf balls. I keep waiting for a television graphic reading: "Last Time Phil Mickelson Flew Commercial - 1996."

You kept hearing how intrinsically hard Shinnecock Hills is and how it plays just that way for the members. Absurd. It doesn't play that way on a daily basis at all. If it did, the members would hop a fence and sneak on the adjacent National Golf Links of America. With good luck in the weather - a lot of rain in the weeks leading up to the Open followed by a dry spell - the difficulty of Shinnecock Hills could be replicated at hundreds of courses.

It's very hard to figure out the USGA. In fact, it's nigh impossible. They say it was contrary to orders to roll the 7th green before the third round. I can't imagine how one mistakenly rolls a green. It's not as if a worker mistakenly puts a Snap-On tool in his pocket, gets to the 7th green, and says "I think I'll roll this thing."

Besides, there's no evidence that says a mistaken roll of the green makes for the difference between sanity and unplayability. The 7th green and many others should have been watered DURING play. Greens have been syringed during rounds at U.S. Opens from time immemorial. Why wait until the early players on Sunday morning started putting into bunkers?

There's no way of knowing other than to note that there's a lot of conflict inside the USGA. Some people want one thing; others want something else; and - off the record, of course - they do a lot of sniping at each other. Then they go on camera and say everything is just fine.

By and large, the USGA gets away with murder by not saying anything. I attended its annual press conference on Wednesday morning. The questions could hardly be softer except that one reporter, echoing a recent story in the magazine Business Week, asked USGA president Fred Ridley how he could justify his membership in the all-male Augusta National Golf Club. Ridley got away with an answer to the effect that he had already said all he had to say on that subject without saying what it was he had said.

There was a Jim Carey movie not long ago in which the central figure was infected with a condition that caused him to speak with candor no matter what. Ridley, similarly affected, might have replied that, for a youngish Florida real estate lawyer, a membership at Augusta National is not far removed from having a license to print money.

You knew that NBC would have to deal with the controversy of the course set-up. So what they did was what they are so good at: They indulge in a form of fake journalism in which it sounds as if hard questions were being asked, except they aren't hard. At the Olympics in Athens it will be laid on with a shovel. The bottom line is: do not get the USGA or the International Olympic Committee mad at you, lest you endanger the right to broadcast the events.

That being said, the images turned out by producer Tommy Roy and his people were superb. As for the voices, the reaction depends on whether or not you like the style and tone of Johnny Miller, who dominates NBC golf totally.

The last time we saw "pitch-out" rough at a championship was for the British Open at Carnoustie in 1999 when the R&A made a mistake so horrendous that it may have forever stained the reputation of a truly great course.

NBC's main man Bob Costas was brought in from the outside world to support the premise that the U.S. Open is so special that it deserves Bob Costas. He contributed a hilarious segment during the father and son interview of Jay and Bill Haas on Sunday. Poor Costas, having been slipped a piece of bad information, said to Jay that the father's day angle was even more memorable because former Masters winner Bob Goalby was HIS father-in-law. Nope. Goalby is an uncle of Jay Haas. Jay Haas is so cool and in charge that he did not correct Costas, who better not make that kind of mistake with Tiger Woods.

The air completely went out of the telecast when Mickelson made a double bogey on the 7lst hole. That's the most I have heard announcers pulling for a player since Ben Crenshaw was on the way to winning a Masters and CBS' Pat Summerall sobbed from happiness (along with all the rest of us who knew Crenshaw.) Mickelson is so much a better story and interview than Retief Goosen, a very nice man who has chosen not to invent a television personality.

Next year the Open goes back to Pinehurst No. 2 in North Carolina. A reporter from Greensboro told me at Shinnecock that new tees had been installed so that Pinehurst can play at 7,400 yards ­ with a par of 70. Nice.


A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2004, 08:48:11 AM »
I am conflicted about this.  I really enjoyed the tournament, and yet, the scores bother me.  2 players under par?  Ernie Els and Sergio Garcia shoot 80's on Sunday?  Singh finishes at +13?  Of the 66 players on Sunday, 28 shot 80 or higher and 8 others shot 79?

What is the point of all of that?  Surely there is some middle ground between a regular tour event shootout at -15, and a bloodbath like this weekend?
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

ForkaB

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2004, 08:49:03 AM »
Ouch!

I can hear the USGA apologists' knives being withdrawn from their sheaves.......as soon as they wake up, that is..........

Thanks, NAF

JakaB

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2004, 09:04:17 AM »
I thought the person who played the best golf won...I found the tournament entertaining...and would be happy to see every course play that firm and the greens that fast every week.   I don't see how one person, one course or one contestant was hurt by anything the USGA did this week.   What is the point of the US Open if not to indentify the best golfer of the week and to entertain the audience....it is not a lesson in obsolete classical architectural values...it was and is the 2004 US Open...a players tournament not a critics coffee chat.

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2004, 09:09:37 AM »
So this tournament did exactly what it wa suppose to do:  identify the luckiest player in the world.

Goosen putted out of his mind.  No one can take that away from him, but shots he and other players executed were at the mercy of bounces and rolls.  Is there anything wrong with that?  No, but luck of the bounce doesn't identify the best player in the field.  The USGA took a page from the R&A's set-up of Carnoustie a few years ago.

A_Clay_Man

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #12 on: June 21, 2004, 09:11:06 AM »
This weekend and the resultant opinions virtually proves, there is no cogniscenti, on this website.

That is the irony. How a bunch of labeled purists, could find their own different tangents, on what appeared to be,  an extreme maintenance melds.

I don't see how different it would've been, in 1933, during a drought. Except some (if not all) would've played #7 with a lower trajectory, using the ground to get close.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2004, 09:12:39 AM by Adam Clayman »

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #13 on: June 21, 2004, 09:12:31 AM »
Adam,

The drought wouldn't have been man-made.

JakaB

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #14 on: June 21, 2004, 09:14:11 AM »
So this tournament did exactly what it wa suppose to do:  identify the luckiest player in the world.

KFry,

Did you even watch the damn thing....Goosen showed the best ball management I may have ever seen in tournament golf...or any golf for that matter.   Sure he made putts....but how many of those putts were from places he intentionally hit the ball.   From hole one where he played "safe" and made birdie to the chip he didn't even try to hit the green....it was masterful.    Who do you think played better but got unlucky and didn't win...
« Last Edit: June 21, 2004, 09:15:55 AM by John B. Kavanaugh »

A.G._Crockett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2004, 09:22:50 AM »
Adam,
With all due respect, I disagree with you about the purists and unhappiness with the extreme maintenance melds.  IMHO, the maintenance meld at Shinnecock this week was so extreme that it detracted from the architecture.  When people think back on the 2004 U.S. Open, those who think about the golf course will not appreciate the greatness of the golf course.  They will instead think about the weirdness of the setup.  While that will, unfortunately, be primarily due to only one hole, nevertheless the greatness of Shinnecock will not be fully recognized.  That is unfortunate from a purist's point of view, isn't it?

BTW, Jerry Kelly is quoted this morning as saying that the course superintendent told him (Kelly) that he (the super) was instructed to roll the 7th green, contrary to the USGA's "mistake" assertion.  In either case, double-cutting and rolling that green might be one example of how this week would have differed from a drought in 1933.
"Golf...is usually played with the outward appearance of great dignity.  It is, nevertheless, a game of considerable passion, either of the explosive type, or that which burns inwardly and sears the soul."      Bobby Jones

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2004, 09:23:52 AM »
Jaka,

I ask you the same question about watching the tournament.  Masterful ball striking?  At times yes.  A good example of Goosen's good fortune is hole #13.  He fades a tee shot into deep rough.  Hacks a shot dead left into the gallery into what normally is dead.  He gets a perfect lie.  Hits a great shot and receives an equally unbelievable bounce.  Makes the putt to save par.  None of that was masterfully executed.  It was Goosen's day.  He finished the final round with 24 putts.  There's your winning formula.

JakaB

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2004, 09:32:37 AM »
KFry,

Goosens chip at 13 was not lucky...it didn't even make it to the hole.   Yes he got a good lie because of the gallery..but he hit a nice flop shot that I thought got a perfectly predictable bounce for the softness of the shot.    The beauty of golf and professional golf in general is our ability to replicate their shots.....we can't hit 340yd drives...but we can make par after a pull, a hack, a great chip and a remarkable putt.   Goosen studied his options and pulled of a great chip....the luck was in the lie not the execution.

btw...as much as I enjoy a good argument I am off to do a little this and that...so don't think I am ignoring your response..or apology for being wrong..whichever you may choose.

RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2004, 09:33:52 AM »
I'm sure on your wave length with that last comment, Barney.  I do think the only aspect of inconsistency that bordered on unfairness was to spray the 7th for some, not all,  or at least make sure the friction provided by the spraying was available to all contestants.  Yet, if there were intermittent showers through the course of the round, one could say that some players would have gotten conditions more favorable than others from the early to late tee times.  So, that just goes to show that there are no consistencies in golf or life... ::)

Now, the question must be asked, did the PGA and the folks that are going to set up Whistling Straits for the championship learn anything?  I'm begining to think not since all they seem to be bragging about lately is bringing the mowed fairway acreage down from 45 to 19!!!  And, the comments that double digits over par may be the winner.  I don't care much if they allow WS to play extreemly hard and fast (like St Andrews was in 2000), but I really don't want to see narrow bowling alleys for FWs bordered by knee-high wired rough there.  And, with rock hard greens, there are plenty of places at WS where a bound through the green is flat out dead on the beach-rocks below.  So, look out for this coming controversy. :P :-[ :-\
No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2004, 09:35:58 AM »
That might be the first time I've ever read someone totally rationalizing away a phenomenal par save. He just got a perfect lie and pitched on and made the putt at 13? That was a tremendous pitch shot, one that, if mishit even slightly, would likely have resulted in a double or maybe worse. Just because he executed perfectly, don't downplay it. Didn't Bobby Jones or someone else we revere say that the recovery shot was the heart of the game?

Hats off to Retief. He was more than just a hot putter. I believe Maggert and Funk putted similarly - where were they relative to him at the finish?
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

A_Clay_Man

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2004, 09:38:28 AM »
DAve- The last round was not where he won the tourney, but it sure was great to see him make the shots, good or bad. His recovery decisions, alone, won him the tourney, allowing him to hold on to his lead, which he had built on the softer course.

and,

Isn't the real irony that golf has lost most of their creative shot-makers, and, now that the set-up required the imagination, confidence and skill to pull-off those creative shots, few had them.

How about the FUN factor?

Duval shoots a mil and had fun. I think Shinnecock was solely responsible for that, and that smile on lefty's face. They had fun.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2004, 09:38:52 AM by Adam Clayman »

JohnV

Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #21 on: June 21, 2004, 09:39:41 AM »
I find it interesting to see how some people are against lucky and unlucky bounces.  I always that that was one thing that most of the people here thought was a part of the game that shouldn't be removed.

The 24 putts is somewhat misleading as Goosen had a number of putts that were from just off the green so they didn't count as a putt.

Kfry, how do you make a drought?  By not doing anything when it is dry.  I think man can un-make a drought with a sprinkler system, but not make one (unless they put tarps on the course when it was supposed to rain).

Since two players under par is twice as many as at the last two US Opens at Shinnecock combined, must we put the blame for these incredibly low scores on the ball and how far they are hitting it?  ;)

Maybe scoring would have been better with the old Balatas that spun more and could be stopped quicker on the firm surfaces.

Ken Fry

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #22 on: June 21, 2004, 09:39:42 AM »
Jeff Maggert and Fred Funk both hit some incredible shots, only to end up in the worst possible locations.  Golf is about receiving bounces that may go one way or the other.  A player can only control so much and shouldn't "expect" every bounce to go their way.  My point is with a set-up like Shinnecock and Carnoustie a few years ago, too much emphasis is place on the luck of the bounce and not the mastery of the course.

Identify the best player in the world?  It didn't happen at Carnoustie and it didn't happen yesterday at Shinnecock.

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #23 on: June 21, 2004, 09:44:07 AM »
KFry -

I would be stunned if there was any player at Shinnecock that agreed with your assertion that Retief was not the best player yesterday. I think this tournament was far from a Carnoustie situation.
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

Jeff_Lewis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:The irony of the USGA
« Reply #24 on: June 21, 2004, 09:47:16 AM »
Carnoustie is not a good analogy at all. The course was just about perfect for the first three days. They only lost control of it on Sunday when the overnight winds took them by surprise and really dried out the course. I prefer a setup where the rough allows for the possibility of recovery and the greens allow for a variety of recovery shots, the way that Shinnecock was set up. Carnoustie was a debacle from the beginning.