Just like Ron's review of The Good Doctor Returns.......He just didn't get it.

Ron maybe should thiink about changing his Wrong Whitten...

Just joking Ron!

Inky fisted peasant

What the hell does that mean...I have been told time and time again that if I say one remark questioning anything Brad Klein says I will be thown off this board.  Yet you Golfweek guys jump on Ron Whitten every chance you get...We need more architectural writers like Ron who are not afraid to lay it on the line and take a chance.  You guys claim to want that...Just not from your rival mag.  I miss Ron's imput on this site...thanks.

The head of the R&A just called the course conditions this week "splended" and Tiger called them "fantastic"....I would agree.

Ron Whitten might, say, "The winner hit his driver once in 72 holes, and even that one wasn't necessary. And he still shot 18 under par. If that doesn't meet the criteria for being "outdated" for modern majors, then what does?"

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just presenting the other side of the case. It's a very simple and reasonable argument to claim that Hoylake does not fully test the modern game. You may or may not agree, but it's a very reasonable argument to make.

Matt,
good to see a well-balanced counter in this.

Truthfully I've only seen excerpts of Ron's critique of Hoylake. But have read more by others critiquing that critique. Have you ever seen the press go after a fellow journalist in the same manner?

I haven't.

And I think that's the point of Kevin's thread.

I've agreed and disagreed on a lot of stuff Ron Whitten has written over the years, more have just been puzzled by some of his more blazing critiques--like of Hidden Creek, where he calls himself a friend of Bill Coore and then proceeds with another architect (Steven Kay) to rip and tear into Bill's work.

Or

....how he took on the persona of a New York Times book critic on his review of Geoff Shackelford's The Good Doctor Returns. Like the book or not, the review wasn't about the book as much as Ron made it personal attack on an up and coming writer in Golf Digest.

This was in the early days of the internet, in fact Golf Club Atlas didn't even exist at that time. Many of us challenged that critique on traditionalgolf.com, which Ron even wrote back to me in an email, "I stand by my review..." It was smug, abrassive and mostly demonstrative of just how petty Ron could get.

Personally, I don't think he liked the fact that others could respond to this kind of critique on the internet. It didn't agree with his opinion. Frankly I don't think Ron would ever have intentions of being a full-time participant here.

Inky fisted peasant

For those who apparently missed it or were not watching, this was Peter Alliss' comment on those who critiqued the course prior to the open. While I don't entirely agree with Whitten's take, I must admit that taking the driver out of the hands of the best player in the world did not make for the most interesting viewing. There was little risk taking all week, and while I agree that Tiger's play and strategy was exceptional, you have to wonder what happened to hitting every club in the bag.... this wasn't a course that required that. Bring back Muirfield or a British Open course that actually requires a broad variety of shots that don't include 40 2-irons.

Robert,

The design of the course did not take the driver out of his hands it was the weather....nature...it just became too hard to risk it as he explained on BBC.

He said in practice rounds he was hitting 400 yard drives that he just could not control after the bounce so he decided to use irons.

Robert,

The design of the course did not take the driver out of his hands it was the weather....nature...it just became too hard to risk it as he explained on BBC.

He said in practice rounds he was hitting 400 yard drives that he just could not control after the bounce so he decided to use irons.

I understand, but I don't think that made the final round any more exciting. No real rough, internal out of bounds and rock hard fairways should have exacted some sort of intriguing play. It didn't. The final round was dull, with the exception of a few key putts by DiMarco. Typical hole -- 2-iron, 8-iron to 30 feet, two putts. Dull.

Question: Take every other course in the Open rota, put them under the same conditions as Royal Liverpool was this week (dry, fast, no real rough, no real wind) and how different would the winning scores be?

Ron Whitten might, say, "The winner hit his driver once in 72 holes, and even that one wasn't necessary. And he still shot 18 under par. If that doesn't meet the criteria for being "outdated" for modern majors, then what does?"

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just presenting the other side of the case. It's a very simple and reasonable argument to claim that Hoylake does not fully test the modern game. You may or may not agree, but it's a very reasonable argument to make.

Matt, Gary Player made a similar point, though he took it in a different direction.  He said the guys could hit iron off the tee, and still be left with mid or short iron into the green.  He thinks if you tee with an iron, you should have wood or long iron left.  

But his complaint was not with the course.  It was with today's turbo-charged ball.  He wants to see the ball ratcheted back 50 yards.  

My issue resides more with Digest than Ron Whitten. I would hope the game's leading publication (at least the total numbers & ad dollars say that) would provide a genuine outlet for real architectural critique than what you are getting now.

Ron Whitten is now moving more and more in the active design field. I have opined on this beforehand and said that one can't be a critic (umpire) and a designer (player) at the same time. And the idea that one simply needs to disclose the situation in order for those relationships to continue is also flat out wrong. What does one do? To you recuse yourself from frank comments because of a future desire to possibly work with someone who is in the field now. If one has to recuse oneself to any great degree the purpose in having a critic who can provide candid comments then becomes compromised.

I enjoyed what Ron had to say in his BO course analysis although I am stil wondering if Ron has ever played the course prior to hie remarks.

First off, more wind would have been nice. A couple rounds with a breeze like they had on Sunday and then at least one round with real wind. That would have been a more complete test of golf, IMO. But wishing doesn't make it so, you take the weather as it happens.

Otherwise, I'd expect the "purist" types on this site to be beside themselves with joy at how it turned out. The "FLOG" strategy of bombing it off the tee with impunity and wedging it close to the hole from wherever it lands was not viable this week. The bunkering functioned quite strategically and the best player in the world put on a Nicklaus-style clinic of how to think ones way around the course and execute the plan perfectly.

Does anyone thing that hitting 2-irons off the tee that travel 260 yards and end up precisely where you planned is easy? How about leaving yourself 210, 200 yards from the hole and having to hit mid-irons off a tight, dusty lie to exactly the correct portions of a rock-hard green?

Chris DeMarco had to hit a bunch of drivers and 3-woods to keep up with Tiger and he managed to do it brilliantly. He worked the ball as he needed to into hard-to-access targets and putted a like a demon all week. And he lost by three shots to an opponent who was completely control of his ball, though the air and once it was on the ground.

If you don't like a driver-wedge, soft, green manicured regular tour stop that can be FLOGged in 22-under-par and you didn't like Hoylake this week then what the hell would you like?

I just finish watching the final round and with the exception of the usual Els and Garcia choke-jobs, that was was good stuff!