[David Stamm]

Anyone catch Phil's thoughts on the course setup? He thought it ridiculous that the greens were being mowed and rolled the same on every green because where some greens are positioned are going to react differently. He said that there is as much as a 4 1/2 difference on the stimp between certain greens. He also said, and I can't remember the exact quote, that USGA shouldn't be setting up the course where the players are at a physical risk of hurting themselves in regards to the rough. Anyone know the course well enough to know what he is talking about in regards to the greens? He mentioned something about the heights of the greens and how some are more exposed to the wind, or words to that effect.

[Pete_Pittock]

Based on this statement I am heightening the odds against Phil winning. Already slimmed by his questionable wrist he IMO is listening too much to Pelz.

I did read earlier today that six greens have too much slope for the stimpmeter to be accurate.

Link to interesting greenkeeper article aboout Oakmont prep and practices.
http://bigga.co.uk/magazine/2754/the-build-up-to-a-major.html

[JESII]

Is there any doubt as to whether or not Phil knows exactly what he is talking about...

[JESII]

Just saw his comments on TGC...please send a box of whatever painkiller he is on, I could use a real numbing...

[Powell Arms]

Is Phil talking himself out of being in contention here?  I'm surprised that a practice round or two wouldn't answer the question of speed.  Seems to me that the pelzmeter is just way too much information.  But then again, I'm not qualfied to carry Phil's bag.

[Mike_Cirba]

Is Phil talking himself out of being in contention here?  I'm surprised that a practice round or two wouldn't answer the question of speed.  Seems to me that the pelzmeter is just way too much information.  But then again, I'm not qualfied to carry Phil's bag.

Powell,

I think it was Sam Snead who said, "The golf course is a terrible place to use your brain."

I'm a firm believer in that and know deep down I could shave at least 10 strokes off my game with a full frontal lobotomy.

When Phil Mickelson, who has always been a total feel player, starts ticking off yardages and stats and swing theories like Bernard Langer, it tells me that he's out of his element and will likely not be around for the weekend.

[Powell Arms]

I won't take that bet.

[Adam Clayman]

Dave Pelz was on TGC right after this and spouted the same theory that greens treated alike will roll at completely different speeds due to their different orientations to the property, etc..

If this is science, it's easily proven.

I wouldn't want to bet against Pelz.

To me, it sounded like Phil was calling out the intellegencia in Far Hills.

[Powell Arms]

I saw Pelz as well, and I don't disagree with him on different speeds.  It also sounded like he had an axe to grind with the USGA over them no longer using the pelzmeter as they had at Bethpage.

[redanman]

Phil sounds like a little boy whining for strokes in a muni match.

Dave Pelz was just on a re-run of pre-game on TGC with the Pelz-Meter.

These two deserve each other.

[Peter Pallotta]

I saw a photo in Lorne Rubenstein's article today of Dave Pelz with the stimpmeter on one of the greens. This was before hearing of Phil's comments, and I have to say my first thought was "whoa, too much information!". I'm not a tour player, I'm not even a good one, but I can't believe ANY player could benefit from knowing "the numbers" in the way Pelz-Phil seem to, or seem to want to. Adam C may be right about what Phil was doing with his comments, but if so I think he really picked the wrong place and time to be focussing on that. I really don't understand it - he's a great and established player, but he sometimes acts like a nerdy freshman who deep down doesn't think he has what it takes to make the varsity chess team.

Peter    

[John Kavanaugh]

Did Phil apply to Stanford?  

[Jim Nugent]

Pretty sure I read that after Phil started working with Pelz, he started winning majors.  Before that he was 0 for about 50.  Since then he is 3 for 13.  Whether or not the Pelzmeter gives more accurate readings, the Phil/Pelz pairing is paying great dividends for Mickelson.

That information that some greens "Pelz" at 4 1/2 feet faster than others could be real valuable, if true.  

[redanman]

Phil can't handle the information he already has, why does he need more? He is a charming man with loads of talent but he needs teh Sam Snead lesson

"The golf course is a dangerous place to use a brain."

As an amateur at Cherry Hills and winning in Tucson, he just grabbed the clubs and hit them, looked at the putts briefly stepped up and made them.

Something HAS changed and not for the better from where I sit and stand. Granted, the USGA has dropped the ball but it does not pay to belabor.  Phil had been a feel player; he is not now.

[Jim Nugent]

When did Phil stop being a "feel" player?

[John Kavanaugh]

How late can Phil pull out and an alternate still get in?  Are guys out on the practice tee waiting for the call?

[redanman]

Jim, I counter with:

How do you spend any significant time around that nut-case Pelz and not become too mechanical? I'd probably part his hair with my 5-iron if I had to spend the whole day listening to him and using his devices that look like something Quentin Tarrentino concocted up for his next movie!

Honestly, I wish Phil the best, I've always been a fan, but he needs to ditch Pelz and go it alone.

[Kyle Harris]

To: Phil Mickelson
From: Kyle Harris
Re: Concerns regarding green speeds at 2007 US Open

Dear Phil,

SO!?

Sincerely,

Kyle

[Bob_Huntley]

I must say that I am no fan of Dave Pelz and his verbosity and he does seem at times, to be the largest well of untapped natural gas on the planet.

Hoever, I do know that some greens on our courses, those that are at a slightly higher elevation than some others, do appear to have different speeds owing to the amount of wind blowing over their more exposed surfaces.


Bob

[Brent Hutto]

It's like a lot of what Dave Pelz does. I think most people know that exposed greens will tend to putt differently than protected ones no matter what the Stimpmeter says. So he goes out and invents ways to measure it to a compulsive degree of detail and then talks about it with thousands of words to the point of complete overkill.

I think some of his stuff has great value but 99.999% of the golfers in the world only need to know about a tenth of what he has to say on the subject. Phil can sound like a know-it-all under the best of circumstances and when he's paraphrasing Dave Pelz that tendency is brought even more to the fore.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim, I counter with:

How do you spend any significant time around that nut-case Pelz and not become too mechanical? I'd probably part his hair with my 5-iron if I had to spend the whole day listening to him and using his devices that look like something Quentin Tarrentino concocted up for his next movie!

Honestly, I wish Phil the best, I've always been a fan, but he needs to ditch Pelz and go it alone.

But Bill, isn't it true that he started winning majors, after his career-long drought, once he hooked up with Pelz?  

If that's true, why would he ditch him?

[Bill_McBride]

Hoever, I do know that some greens on our courses, those that are at a slightly higher elevation than some others, do appear to have different speeds owing to the amount of wind blowing over their more exposed surfaces.

And I'll bet you know every one, and exactly what the differences are!  

[A.G._Crockett]

Me to the other members of my foursome after missing a putt (again!):
"Well, I obviously missed that because this green was mowed EXACTLY like the other 17 greens!  However, due to factors like slope and grain, that makes it roll differently.  Therefore, I missed, but it was NOT my fault!"

The other members of my foursome to me:
"So why did you miss on all of the other 17, then, butthead?"

I hope this idea of mowing each green differently to make them play exactly the same catches on; it should do wonders for maintenance costs and the price of playing golf!

[redanman]

But Bill, isn't it true that he started winning majors, after his career-long drought, once he hooked up with Pelz?  

If that's true, why would he ditch him?

Is the winning causative or associative?

Phil has in some ways not played as well as he did as an amateur, winning Tucson, winning the Am at Cheery Hills.
As Phil gets more complicated, he does not seem to achieve greater consistency. I think he has done the best when he was simpler in his approach. It might be nice if Pelz really helped, but as we all know help is ephemeral.  In the end it is the mental game.  Phil himself called himself an idiot at WF.  Bad brain, that's all that did that.

As an amateur Phil's short game was ungodly, no better that it is with Pelz, I just don't see it and that's just my O, right or wrong.

p.s. I love to argue.  Ever notice?

[JESII]

The one thing I would credit Pelz with is getting Phil to go to the major sites early and really focus his mind on how to play the golf course...correct me if I am wrong, but after early success with that tactic his dedication to it has waned...too much money in that man's pocket...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()