[SteveC]

I'm really puzzled by the USGA's decision to water No. 7 after two groups had gone through. I have no quarrel with their decision to water, nor would I have quarrelled with them if they had not watered (although I think 3 triples in 2 groups of the world's best golfers is downright silly).

But I do have a problem with their decision to water the green AFTER the 2 groups finished play on the hole. By anyone's standards, that is not fair. Certain players were forced to play the hole under conditions - implemented by the hand of man - which were different from the conditions experienced by the rest of the field.

It would be like re-raking a bunker after a group has finished a hole, just to make it nice for the next guy...didn't that happen a while back?

How can the USGA, promoters of the game's integrity, hold their heads up on this one? Seems embarrassing at best, and shameful at worst.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve C,

why is it not "fair" ?

Should they water it after every group plays ?

And if they do, and after 4 hours of watering the green becomes soft and soggy, is that fair ?

You guys are being ridiculous, the purpose of syringing isn't to make everyone benefit from exactly the same playing conditions, something that's impossible to achieve.

Should the USGA have wind regulators so that all contestants will play all of the holes under the same conditions ?

Stop being absurd, the problem wasn't the syringing, the problem was created before sunday morning's tee off.
They made a mistake, get over it and get on with your lives.

Golf is not about "fairness", it's not an inherent virtue of the game.

[Joe Hancock]

Pat,

I don't think SteveC is being absurd for asking about fairness. What is truly absurd is this nations governing body for golf displaying such poor judgement and lack of control over the green speeds for everyone to behold. Was there anything good that came out of this ridiculous spectacle, in a long term sense? Sure it made for interesting viewing, but what about the impressions left behind? The precedences? The standards?

The 7th green should have been properly prepared (USGA control) before competiton began. That they HAD to be out there with hoses after the first two groups of the day is absurd.

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Hancock,

I think everyone acknowledges that a mistake was made on the 7th hole.

But, the 7th hole wasn't the only hole that was part of the tournament.

You can focus on a mistake or on the positive aspects of the tournament, and I prefer the latter, with an eye toward not repeating the former.

[Joe Hancock]

Joe Hancock,

I think everyone acknowledges that a mistake was made on the 7th hole.

But, the 7th hole wasn't the only hole that was part of the tournament.

You can focus on a mistake or on the positive aspects of the tournament, and I prefer the latter, with an eye toward not repeating the former.

Pat,

I can agree with all of that. I was just expressing my opinion of where the absurdity lay, and IMO it wasn't SteveC asking about the fairness of watering with competition taking place.

Joe

[SteveC]

Patrick,

I just think the tournament honchos should have known rright off the bat that conditions were extreme, and watered the hole for EVERY group. They didn't, and therefore the first two groups were at a competitive disadvantage. No one can dispute that fact. Period.

[Doug Siebert]

The first two groups going through had NO chance to win.  If they sorted the starting times randomly and Mickelson played dry greens and Goosen played them after wetting then you might have an argument.  But even then, consider that no two groups play the same hole anyway, certainly not the first and last groups of the day.  The temperature, wind, humidity, dryness, precipitation (if any) the growth of the grass and the spike marks, ball marks and footprints of earlier competitors can all hurt or help you compared to someone starting at a different time.  A ladybug walking across the green at the wrong time could decide a US Open -- should they wet the greens down with Raid instead of water to counter that possibility for unfairness as well?

You want fairness, play the damn thing on a simulator and get off the golf course!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve C,

The 7th hole never should have reached the point where it needed syringing during the round, that's where the mistake was made.

[A_Clay_Man]

I can't help but feel that had they done nothing, the unfair cry, would've been louder.

[Tony_Chapman]

Goosen parred the "unfair" hole four times. Must have been luck.  

[Matthew Mollica]

I've personally always hated the cry of "UNFAIR" regarding any matter on a golf course. I welcome comments such as Tony's above regarding Goosen's performance on the 7th through the tourney.

The green could have been rolled more often, and the green mown closer, and the stimp measured higher in the teens. Provided it went untouched by man from the time the first players reached it, to after the last reached it, I have no problems.

However - man's efforts at altering the course conditions throughout the day, in any form, does not sit well with me. The absence of any significant explanation for such unusual behavior is disappointing.

I hope the net result is similar to that seen when our Australian Open was halted for a day due to very tough pin placements, and extreme green speeds, several years ago. The powers that be chose to throttle off a touch for the remainer of that tournament, and subsequent tournaments.

Matthew

[Jeff Goldman]

Intentionally and manually manipulating the conditions of play during a round doesn't raise questions?  Isn't that like playing the ball up, something the USGA would never allow?  Could they have changed the hole location on 18 at Olympic after the first group came through and they knew they had a problem?  Alternatively, why didn't they water the green on that hole during play?  Wasn't there some discussion of that possibility and a recoil from the USGA?

Jeff Goldman

[Michael Dugger]

I don't like to hear unfair in golf circles.  It's silly.

I don't have a problem with the first two groups playing the hole as it was.  

Now if they had syringed before Mickelson's group came through, but not before Goosen's, that would be another issue.

But really, who cares about the first two groups.  They had ZERO chance of affecting the tournament outcome.  

Sorry Billy Mayfair, oh, and by the way, good job acting like a two year old after finishing but another CRAPPY HOLE.  

 

[Bob_Huntley]

Michael,

I care about ALL the groups, changing the outcome or not.

Bob

[johnk]

Fairness is not relevant with respect to the actual playing of the game, since golf is not a fair game.  Rub of the green and all.

Fairness in conducting a competition is another thing.  For example, most of the players are playing the game for money.  The first two groups played #7 in 6, 6, 6, 4.  If it were watered for them and they were not treated as guinea pigs, perhaps they would have played it in 4, 3, 4, 3.  Who knows?  But certainly a few strokes could have meant a few thousand dollars difference in prize money.

Is it fair in running the competition to treat some competitors as test cases for how the hole should be managed?  I don't think so, and a good competition committee shouldn't allow that to even be considered.

Simple answer: water the damn hole ahead of time.  Fairness in managing the competition should not be compromised by the need to keep the course on the edge of playability to "protect par."

[George Pazin]

John -

I'm sure even the USGA would agree now, in hindsight, that the 7th should have been watered prior to the first group.

But that's easy to say now. Should they have let it go completely, after seeing the problem with two groups way out of contention?

Conditions change throughout the day on every hole. Every hole. Such is the nature of competition at an outdoor sporting event.

Anyone who has worked at a US Open will tell you that syringing is a common practice. As Don Mahaffey indicated on another thread, the primary purpose isn't even to alter the playing field so much as to alter the microclimate in order to keep the grass alive.

When you take things to the limit, you will have the odd problem. As Adam stated before, had the USGA not acted, the outcry would have been much greater, and justifiably so.

20/20 hindsight is always clearer. I just hope the USGA does not react too much to the outcry and swing things in the othe direction.

How many years of boring hack out golf did we have to suffer through before the last few years of firm and fast?

Please temper your criticism with that in mind!

[Michael Dugger]

Hey Bob, you pickin' on me???

George expressed my sentiments.  I too care about all groups, but I think t'was better that two groups got "shafted" then for the rest of those coming later to play the hole as is.

As has been mentioned ad infinitum the past few days, choosing to water that 7th green was "damage control"

We all know that reactionary efforts come up well short of proactive ones.

In hindsight, I don't feel sorry for Mayfair, Stadler, etc. and I suspect if we asked them for an opinion on the matter they would agree that the proper measures were taken.  

Again.......at least the "proper" measures come that time, which was already too late.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()