[Gary_Nelson]

Did anyone else catch Johnny Miller's comments on Sunday regarding #17 at Oakland Hills?  He was talking about this hole being essentially "unfair" because it forces the players to hit a high cut to get close to a back right pin position.  He said that straight shots at the top shelf bounce off the green.

I was hoping he would have taken the time to explain that this hole was special because it requires "something extra" from the best players in golf to make birdie.  Instead he takes the easy route and says the hole is unfair.  

[Mike Nuzzo]

He also claimed one of the fairways was unfair, because if you striped it down the middle, you would wind up in the left rough.  Then they made the comment how the Euros all found the fairway.  I wonder why...

[Carlyle Rood]

He also claimed one of the fairways was unfair, because if you striped it down the middle, you would wind up in the left rough.  Then they made the comment how the Euros all found the fairway.  I wonder why...

Actually, his complaint was that shots played to the center of the fairway arbitrarily could bounce into the rough.  In other words, the same shot was not rewarded/punished the same way.  He didn't like that you were required to get a lucky bounce to stay in the fairway.  He felt if you striped a drive 240 yards and landed precisely where you aimed, then the outcome should be more consistent.

[John_Cullum]

"There's really not alot of design in this green."

20 seconds later-"Its really difficult to get a putt all the way up that hill."

[Mike Benham]

He also claimed one of the fairways was unfair, because if you striped it down the middle, you would wind up in the left rough.  Then they made the comment how the Euros all found the fairway.  I wonder why...

Actually, his complaint was that shots played to the center of the fairway arbitrarily could bounce into the rough.  In other words, the same shot was not rewarded/punished the same way.  He didn't like that you were required to get a lucky bounce to stay in the fairway.  He felt if you striped a drive 240 yards and landed precisely where you aimed, then the outcome should be more consistent.

I believe that was the 18th fairway where he also noted that the fairway cut should have been wider to account for the off-cantor bounces to the left and into the rough.

[Rick Shefchik]

The "unfair" comment I recall Miller making was about the 18th fairway with its leftward tilt. He compared it to #17 at the Olympic Club, which has the opposite cant.

I always enjoy Miller, but I don't agree with him about #18 at Oakland Hills. The Euros owned that hole, and they did so by almost always hitting the fairway, choosing to risk landing in the right fairway bunker in order to keep the ball from pitching into the left rough. They executed the shot that was called for. The U.S. team kept hitting the ball down the middle and ending up in shin-high rough -- except for Phil, who decided to bank one off the OB fence.

[John_Conley]

Miller called a hole location on #8 (played as #17 that week) of Interlachen during the Solheim Cup unfair.  Funny thing, the members played it there all the time.  All you have to do is stay below the hole at all costs on your approach.  It wasn't unfair, but did make birdie a rarity.  Playing for par, it was better to be a lot of places - including 20 yards short or in the bunker - that were better than middle of the green, just past and left of the hole.

It's unfair if Miller says it is, unless you choose to ignore him.  All in all, I like his commentary.

[Phil_the_Author]

Frankly, how can anyone take seriously comments made by a person, U.S. Open winner or not, who routinely speaks of putts that "hook" or "slice"?

[A.G._Crockett]

In fairness to Miller, I think on the whole he was more complimentary of Oakland Hills than I can ever remember him being about any other course.  For example, he referred, especially on Friday, to "genius greens".

I doubt that most of the world shares the perspective of this website in evaluating a setup like #18.  For that matter, I'd venture to say that the inhabitants of this site would be much LESS interested in architecture and much MORE pissed off if their perfectly struck tee shot kicked into unplayable rough.  

I don't mean by the above that the hole was "fair" or "unfair".  It is awfully easy, though, to maintain your interest in GCA when playing the hole from your living room!

[Michael Dugger]

I did not catch much of the tournament but I did see some shots played to that 17th hole in question.

On Saturday, I saw Campbell, Furyk and Casey hit it on the back portion and fly it over the green.

Then the most unknown guy in the group, I can't even remember his name, bounced it on the front portion, up the incline and it stopped pin high.

I do not get this unfair talk.  Never do.  Seemed you didn't want to fly it right at the stick on 17, big deal?  What is so unfair about that?

[TEPaul]

Perhaps I'm wrong about this but I don't recall hearing Miller say HE thought that hole was unfair. I  thought he only said that some might think it was unfair. I also remember Miller asking his fellow commentator this;

"Don't you think the only way a player could possibly get close to that pin on #17 (that back right shelf) is if that player could hit a high fade?"

I certainly do remember also thinking that his remarks would somehow end up being discussed on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

[Gary_Nelson]

Michael,

You are exactly right.  You don't want to fly it right to the pin on #17.  You have to play a high fade, land it in the middle of the green, and run it up.  This is a shining example of solid architecture that was glossed over in favor of "fairness".

It would be easy to soften up the greens where the guys could stick every kind of approach shot (cut, straight, draw).  Instead they made it "firm & fast" and are asking the players for a bit more skill to get it close.  I saw it as a lost opportunity to show off good architecture.

[Brent Hutto]

For that matter, I'd venture to say that the inhabitants of this site would be much LESS interested in architecture and much MORE pissed off if their perfectly struck tee shot kicked into unplayable rough.

Do you mean pissed off at the moment or pissed off after the round is over and I've had time to think about it. As a high handicapper it's not unusual for me to hit a shot straight at where I'm aiming and then end up in a fairway bunker or deep rough. Very frustrating to hit one of my rare "perfectly struck" shots and be rewarded with a terrible lie. Generally, once I get over being pissed off I realize that I was just aiming in the wrong place. Based on quotes from Davis Love after the round that seems to be his attitude about the matter.

[Rick Shefchik]

Speaking of firm and fast, Oakland Hills was set up much more to my liking than was Shinnecock, though most of Shinnecock managed to stay barely within the bounds of acceptable.

At Oakland Hills, excellent shots were rewarded, poorly conceived or poorly executed shots were summarily punished. You absolutely could not get a break if you landed your ball in the wrong spot on the greens, but it wasn't impossible to hit it in the right spot. I thought the setup produced/allowed just the right balance of birdies and double-bogeys.
 

[TEPaul]

All in all I though Oakland Hills during the Ryder Cup pretty much nailed their "ideal maintenance meld". It may have been a bit of their "ideal maintenance meld" on some low grade steriods but their "Ideal maintenance meld" nonetheless, but particularly for the caliber of player they had there last weekend. Not that it really effected "playability" but the only thing about their set-up that was obnoxious to me were those ultra fussy looking mowing patterns they had all over the place. An old fashioned up and back fairway cut almost to the green would've looked ideal to me.

[Robert Thompson]

I actually think 18 is a bit unfair -- the fairway at Oakland Hills was simply never set up to play as a par five. These days the players hit drives to the knoll in the hill and the ball simply kicked down to the left rough. The only way to play it, as I could see when I was there on Friday, was to hit a high cut. Even then players were left with 185 yards to a green that would not hold a long iron approach -- unless, of course, you hit the ball right into the swale and risked a three putt.
Almost tricked up, I'd say, though not intentionally. Seems to me the hole still played as a par five -- and five was a good score.

As for the Europeans all hitting the fairway, that may be true. But it seemed to me that most of the matches never made it that far.....

Robert

[TEPaul]

Baaaaahhhhhhhrrrrrrrrfff!

Whew---that feels better!

[A_Clay_Man]

If any of you have golfed a JM design, you would know he knows a great deal about "unfair".

[TEPaul]

redanman:

There's no question at all that Johnny Miller is the most straigthforward, honest and informative TV golf commentator in the history of the business!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gary Nelson,

I wonder if many don't get caught up with the general term,
"fair" ?  Perhaps, the word "unreasonable" would be more appropriate.

Golf is blessed by random events, but when a design feature penalizes a well intended and executed shot, as a pattern, one has to question its merit.

A hole that plays well from one angle, its original or intended angle, might play poorly from a different angle, and if that's the case, one has to question the alteration of the angle of attack and the lack of the retention of the original design intent/integrity.

A new angle of attack, combined with the LZ features, could be a contradiction with the intended design of the hole, and as such, an unreasonable design, generally producing what are perceived as "unfair" results.

I believe that each situation must be carefully observed and evaluated, and that the statement Miller made relating to not being "fair", might be right on target.

There is the possibility that Miller is correct, and many of you, off base.

[James Edwards]

Does JM draw the ball by any chance?

[BCrosby]

If everyone is playing the same course, it is by definition fair. Golf courses - in and of themselves - are never fair or unfair.

A course might be badly designed, require unreasonable shots, too hard, too fast, too slow, badly maintained or just plain nutty. But commentators are unable (or unwilling) to articulate such specific criticisms. So they put their brains in neutral and call it unfair.

Take a green that won't hold a well struck shot to the middle of the putting surface. That's not unfair if you and I are both playing the same green under the same conditions. It might be an example of bad maintenance practice, crazy contours, whatever, but it's not "unfair". At least not in any sense of the the term with which I am familiar.

I can think of only one instance where "unfair" was used correctly in relation to a golf course. That was at the US Open this summer where the USGA watered the 7th green for some players and not for others.

The word is egregiously over-used by commentators and golf writers. Happily it pops up very rarely in discussions here at GCA. That's the way it should be.

Bob

[tlavin]

Johnny Miller is a self-absorbed gasbag who has forgotten every bad swing he's ever made.  Hell, I've forgotten every bad swing he ever made, because he had such a brief (albeit amazing) run as the best player in the game.

But, so what!  He is great in the booth, because he'll say anything.  He's the Howard Cosell of golf and we are the beneficiaries.  I mean, really, would you rather listen to Steve Melnyk or the happily departed Curtis Strange?  With the notable exception of the brilliant David Feherty, NBC simply blows everybody else away.

[Gary_Nelson]

I wonder if many don't get caught up with the general term,
"fair" ?  Perhaps, the word "unreasonable" would be more appropriate.


Golf is blessed by random events, but when a design feature penalizes a well intended and executed shot, as a pattern, one has to question its merit.

The green is designed to reward a well executed shot.  The players were hitting it in the wrong spot.

A hole that plays well from one angle, its original or intended angle, might play poorly from a different angle, and if that's the case, one has to question the alteration of the angle of attack and the lack of the retention of the original design intent/integrity.

The angle of attack is the same since the course opened.  No changes for the Ryder Cup.

A new angle of attack, combined with the LZ features, could be a contradiction with the intended design of the hole, and as such, an unreasonable design, generally producing what are perceived as "unfair" results.

I believe that each situation must be carefully observed and evaluated, and that the statement Miller made relating to not being "fair", might be right on target.

Miller's "unfair" statement was talking about players hitting to a 15' landing zone around the pin and the ball bouncing and running over the green.  He went on to say the proper approach would be a high cut to the center of the green and let the ball run to the pin.

There is the possibility that Miller is correct, and many of you, off base.

The shot required is 200 yards, 20' uphill, high cut to the center of the green.  In my opinion, that shot should be in a Ryder Cup player's bag.

Gary.

[Dan Kelly]

Amen, Mr. Crosby.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()