[Phil McDade]

Rarely have the two major opens in one year had such a disparity in the winning scores -- a difference of 23 shots. Which was the better test? My own criteria (others may differ...): the extent to which the course demanded strategic thinking; the demands put on various facets of a player's game; the course offering alternative approaches/scenarios  with varying outcomes (in the risk vs. reward vein).

It's not a query about which is the better course, or the one that produced a "better" or more worthy winner. Rather, under open conditions set by the USGA and R&A, which was the better test of golf for the world's best players? (Both, in my view, produced notable leader boards and not-out-of-left-field winners.)

[Tom Huckaby]

That is one GREAT question.

On the surface, one would look at the scores and the obvious answer would be Winged Foot.  But what was really tested there except pure ball-striking?  Final hole club-choice lapses notwithstanding, really the only thing involved for those guys was just missing the rough and hitting the greens and making putts.  Oh it was a STERN test indeed, but was any mental or strategic creativity called for?  And shouldn't that be a large part of the test of golf?

So put me down for Hoylake.  The fact that the winner chose such a different strategy than his pursuers - a strategy that fit his game, but that nonetheless many others could have tried but did not - tells me that the mental test was greater at Hoylake.  Beyond that, a wider variety of shots was called for - high/low/spinning/running.  At Winged Foot, it was all high/straight/soft landing.

TH

[Phil_the_Author]

Yet the winner at Hoylake who "chose such a different strategy than his pursuers - a strategy that fit his game, but that nonetheless many others could have tried but did not - tells me that the mental test was greater at Hoylake..." was unable to make the cut at Winged Foot.

The strategy that he employed at Hoylake, take less club and put it in the fairway, was never even considered at Winged Foot where, as you put it, "the only thing involved for those guys was just missing the rough..." and yet he failed to do this consistently.

Why is his strategy at Hoylake so praised while his apparent lack of one at Winged Foot not vilified?

I believe the answer lies in his success. Consider, if he won at Winged Foot and failed to make the cut at Hoylake change your view of his strategy in attacking the course? Neither success nor failure defines whether a strategy used was good or not, it just shows that it succeeded or didn't.

I believe both courses presented great, but decidedly different types of tests.

[JSlonis]

Philip,

While it took some time for him to admit to what everyone already knew, Tiger's game was unprepared for the US Open.  He was clearly not his normal self.

It would have been interesting to see what type of scores Tiger could've shot at Winged Foot, if he brought his current game from the British, and stuck with the 2 iron from the tee.  He has the length to play Winged Foot with just his 2 iron or 3 wood.  He definitely would've scored a lot higher than Hoylake, but I wonder if he could've come close to the ultimate winning score of +5.

[Tom Huckaby]

Philip:

Well asked and well-said.  I too believe both courses presented great but decidedly different tests.  I just also believe the test at Hoylake was more complete.

I think the reason for Tigers' club choices in New York was that Winged Foot being so much effectively LONGER and generally softer, he could not succeed with an irons-only strategy - his shots into those generally raised, sand-ringed greens would have been way too long to allow for a decent chance at success.  Tiger is many things but stupid he is not.  

Perhaps for some, this makes it the greater test - I fully agree that if pure long and straight ball-striking only is considered, WF was the sterner test.

I just don't see that any golfer had much choice about how to play Winged Foot, as it was set up by the USGA.  Obviously the choices were aplenty at Hoylake.

Add into it the greater creativity in shot-making allowed for at Hoylake, and for me the test is greater.

But in the end, both were very, very fine tests of championship golf.  Perhaps it is apples and oranges.

TH

ps to Jamie - our posts crossed - do you really think Tiger could have had success with 2iron/3wood strategy off the tee at WF?  I mean the same "no drivers" strategy employed at Hoylake?  I don't/.  He'd be leaving way too long approaches.  As it was, from what I saw he DID hit a lot of non-drivers... he was just rusty and a lot of THOSE found the rough!

[Adam Clayman]

Both styles required the old adage "fairways and greens".

 One style, stymied the balls from rolling on to their unpredictable conclusion.

It would be interesting to see how Winged Foot would play with all short grass and firmer.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom, his ability to play the Open from a mental standpoint surely had almost nothing to do with how he examined the course prior to the Open and the strategy he chose to employ.

It most certainly impacted on his ability to execute that strategy.

Though WF played decidedly longer than Hoylake, the unanimous hue and cry of "you idiot Mickelson put away your driver on 18" shows that these guys surely could have played the course with a more conservative approach. Consider, which holes at WF did Tiger, Phil, Colin Furyk, etc... HAVE to hit driver on in order to DRAMATICALLY increase their odds on parring them? I don't believe there may have been more than one or possibly two.

I believe that when a tour pro looks at a course like WF they forget that what is presented to them is 'hit it in the fairway and then on the green, take a run at birdie and gratefully accept par.' They just don't seem to want to play with that conservative mindset.

Example, Monty on 18. Why go to a shorter club? If he hits the one in his hand he goes center of the green (the preferred location anyway) and has a better than average chance to two-putt from there. Listening to the addrenaline pumping through his veins, he simply tried to hit too good a shot and missed it.  

[Mark Pearce]

I have to disagree that both required fairways and greens.

WFW surely did, but at Hoylake winding up in rough after rolling in the fairway did not detract nor did missing the green in the right place.

WFW was penal in nature (Don't miss or die), Hoylake was primarily strategic - miss it correctly.  Big difference.

Absolutely right.  The other guys playing driver at Hoylake could have shot the lights out had they kept it out of the bunkers and missed in the right places.  But they didn't.  That's can only be for one of two reasons:  their strategy as to where to hit it was wrong, or they didn't execute well enough.  

Also, does anyone really question that the best display of ball striking last weekend was given by the winner?  In my book both tournaments tested the quality of ball striking but Hoylake gave Woods the opportunity (a rarity amongst professional tournaments these days) to demonstrate the quality with which he struck long irons.

[JSlonis]

Tom,

Like you, I don't think he could've had much success employing that same strategy at Winged Foot.  The design and setup just wouldn't allow it like it did at Hoylake.

As you said, the player's choices at Winged Foot were far more limited to what they encountered at Hoylake.  At WF, they were damned either way.

[Jim Nugent]

Rarely have the two major opens in one year had such a disparity in the winning scores -- a difference of 23 shots.

Just to set the record straight, the difference was 15 shots.  Still a lot.  

[Phil McDade]

Jim:

I probably should have been more clear -- relative to par. Ogilvy at +5; Tiger at -18.

[Tom Huckaby]

Philip - OK, can understand all that.

I still think Hoylake was the more complete test.  There really was only one effective way to play WF... the choices were numerous at Hoylake - and that goes for strategy and shot-making.

Hey, I'm not at all saying WF was EASY - good lord, it beat the crap out of those guys.  But it beat the crap out of only one part of their game:  ball-striking.  

Look at it this way:  post-WF, players for the most part shrugged it off as an overly severe test of their ability to hit the ball, and changed nothing in the way they play - it was the course's and the USGA's fault, not theirs.  Post-Hoylake, I'd guess many are contemplating over-use of the driver.... the course thereby making them question the way they play the game.

That to me shows the greater test... But hey, it surely is close.  And it may well be apples and oranges.

TH

[Adam Clayman]

Good point Dr. Bill

The added creativity required for recovery, in Liverpool, made it closer to the way golf should be presented.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()