Geoff Ogilvy vs. Henry Fownes

« **on:** June 18, 2007, 12:40:50 PM »

Many of us became big fans of Geoff Ogilvy after his on-the-mark comments about golf course design and set-up following last year's U.S. Open.

And everyone is familiar with Oakmont founder Henry C. Fownes' guiding philosophy: "A shot poorly played should be a shot irrevocably lost."

Here's Ogilvy, following this year's open at Oakmont: "It's fine getting penalized. But you miss the fairway by a yard and you chop it out 5 yards. I don't like the black and white of the guaranteed one-shot penalty for hitting the ball in a bad spot."

Who's right?

« **Reply #1 on:** June 18, 2007, 12:44:31 PM »

They're both right. Oakmont is Oakmont and the US Open is the US Open. If Ogilvy doesn't like the courses or the setup, he can skip the event. He got lucky last year despite the horrors of the setup and walked away with the trophy. To me, Oakmont and the Open are all about informed consent. If you join Oakmont, then you are consenting to a rigorous, even penal challenge on a daily basis. If you qualify for the Open and choose to play, you consent to play a course chosen by the USGA and set up by the USGA.

Frankly, Ogilvy comes off as a bit of a whiner, which is too bad because he seems like a good man with a good bit of game.

« **Reply #2 on:** June 18, 2007, 12:45:01 PM »

I believe Geoff is criticizing the USGA, not Fownes.

If the rough is more of a penalty than the hazards (bunkers), which I suspect is true, then Geoff is right. I would guess Fownes agrees with him.

« **Reply #3 on:** June 18, 2007, 12:46:41 PM »

Quote from: Terry Lavin on June 18, 2007, 12:44:31 PM

They're both right. Oakmont is Oakmont and the US Open is the US Open. If Ogilvy doesn't like the courses or the setup, he can skip the event. He got lucky last year despite the horrors of the setup and walked away with the trophy. To me, Oakmont and the Open are all about informed consent. If you join Oakmont, then you are consenting to a rigorous, even penal challenge on a daily basis. If you qualify for the Open and choose to play, you consent to play a course chosen by the USGA and set up by the USGA.

Frankly, Ogilvy comes off as a bit of a whiner, which is too bad because he seems like a good man with a good bit of game.

Wrong again. Whiner? Give me a break? Lucky? What? You think he won the lottery, not the US Open?

« **Reply #4 on:** June 18, 2007, 12:46:49 PM »

Rick,

You'd have to parse the word "should" in Fownes' comment to answer your question. Is that in the Bible, Torah or Koran somewhere? Or just a belief popular with one guy and his friends a hundred years ago?

For my part, if I'm playing golf then I agree with Jeff Ogilvie. That sort of black-and-white difference depending on the lie you happen to draw on a shot that bounces slightly offline is no fun at all.

Also, if I'm watching golf on TV then hacking out a few yards sideways as punishment for numerous slightly less than perfect shots is unexciting. The possibility of recovery is always where the interest lies IMO.

But I'm sure there are lots of fine players who want some sort of brutal, do-or-die test designed to highlight every tiny imperfection in their game. For that purpose, Fownes not only stated it succinctly but his course is a brilliant instantiation of that idea.

« **Reply #5 on:** June 18, 2007, 01:00:28 PM »

Wrong again. Whiner? Give me a break? Lucky? What? You think he won the lottery, not the US Open?

Quote

Maybe it's hyperbole, but he did back into the win. Maybe lucky is too harsh, but he comes off as a whiner complaining about the setup.

« **Reply #6 on:** June 18, 2007, 01:03:05 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on June 18, 2007, 12:46:41 PM

Quote from: Terry Lavin on June 18, 2007, 12:44:31 PM
They're both right. Oakmont is Oakmont and the US Open is the US Open. If Ogilvy doesn't like the courses or the setup, he can skip the event. He got lucky last year despite the horrors of the setup and walked away with the trophy. To me, Oakmont and the Open are all about informed consent. If you join Oakmont, then you are consenting to a rigorous, even penal challenge on a daily basis. If you qualify for the Open and choose to play, you consent to play a course chosen by the USGA and set up by the USGA.

Frankly, Ogilvy comes off as a bit of a whiner, which is too bad because he seems like a good man with a good bit of game.

Wrong again. Whiner? Give me a break? Lucky? What? You think he won the lottery, not the US Open?

Let me clarify a little. If your background is playing lots of golf at Royal Melbourne and similar places, then you obviously would have your preferences that would not include US Open style set ups. Don't confuse telling the truth with whining.

« **Reply #7 on:** June 18, 2007, 01:04:16 PM »

If you don't think the perception is that he's whining, I just "googled" his name and this item from an Aussie website was the first article. It sure seems like the Australian media thinks he's whining.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Sport/Ogilvy-not-happy-with-Open-setup/2007/06/18/1182019002371.html

« **Reply #8 on:** June 18, 2007, 01:14:18 PM »

Quote from: Rick Shefchik on June 18, 2007, 12:40:50 PM

...
Here's Ogilvy, following this year's open at Oakmont: "It's fine getting penalized. But you miss the fairway by a yard and you chop it out 5 yards. I don't like the black and white of the guaranteed one-shot penalty for hitting the ball in a bad spot."

Who's right?

I am sorry I was not witness to all he said. The above he complains about chopping out, which I take as a reference to the rough. I agree with him on that. The linked article has him complaining about the bunkers. I disagree with him on that.

But he did win last year by executing fine shots where others didn't. I think calling it backing in is unfair.

« **Reply #9 on:** June 18, 2007, 02:11:32 PM »

Hitting into the rough off the tee cost, on average, a shade more than a half stroke. It was not the guaranteed stroke penalty Geoff said.

« **Reply #10 on:** June 18, 2007, 03:49:53 PM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on June 18, 2007, 12:45:01 PM

I believe Geoff is criticizing the USGA, not Fownes.

If the rough is more of a penalty than the hazards (bunkers), which I suspect is true, then Geoff is right. I would guess Fownes agrees with him.

To go along with this, I wonder if Fownes had this kind of rough in mind, where it was liquid fertilized and groomed to stand up like Ian Poulter's hair. If I'm not mistaken, there were alot more bunkers when Fownes originally laid out the course and this was the primary defense he had in mind. I don't think he and the other GCA's even imagined this type of rough was possible, in terms of strength and consistentcy. I think there would been alot of snapped hickory shafts. I think the question then becomes, would they have used this type of rough?

« **Reply #11 on:** June 18, 2007, 04:29:01 PM »

I'm a huge fan of Geoff Ogilvy's - I've followed him ever since he was in the hunt at the Honda Classic 3 or 4 years ago, or whenever that was, I think it was the year Kuchar won it - but I think he mischaracterises the rough. If one were to chart the wedge-outs, I'd guess they were mostly far misses, not missing the fairway by a yard. The only wedgouts close to the far that stick out to me are the ones that ended up in the drainage ditches, and those are penal hazards to be avoided, they're not simply rough lining the fairways.

« **Reply #12 on:** June 18, 2007, 04:32:00 PM »

To read Superintendent Zimmer's Oakmont write-up, I suppose we can try and decide from his comments what features Henry had in mind relative to deep lush rough VS dry long rough. Let's face it, no irrigation was available in Henry's time.

William on the other hand is credited with most of the on-going toughening of the course along with Loeffler. He was the one that would have understood what irrigation would do to the balance between the primarily penal multitude of sand bunkers he added to greatly as distances in early bunkers became irrelavant, and the penal nature of ever more lush watered and fertilized rough.

It is an interesting question if William Fownes wanted to see the rough more dominant than the bunkers as the penalizing factor.

There is a lot to chew on in Zimmers write-up.

« **Reply #13 on:** June 18, 2007, 04:34:14 PM »

"I think the question then becomes, would they have used this type of rough?"

David:

I don't believe it would've been possible to have the type of rough they had this week at Oakmont when Fownes was alive.

« **Reply #14 on:** June 18, 2007, 04:42:47 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on June 18, 2007, 04:34:14 PM

"I think the question then becomes, would they have used this type of rough?"

David:

I don't believe it would've been possible to have the type of rough they had this week at Oakmont when Fownes was alive.

I understand Tom. It wasn't just impossible, I don't think it ever occurred to them. I wonder if it HAD been available to them, would they have used it? I'm not so sure. I think the concept that players would rather be in a bunker than in the rough would've left them scratching their heads, and in Fownes case, digging the bunkers deeper and making the furrows even deeper. As a side note, how much of an intergral role did the furrows play back then?

« **Reply #15 on:** June 18, 2007, 04:49:13 PM »

David, if your premise is correct -- that rough of the 2007 variety would have snapped the shafts of a hickory club -- I think we can safely assume Fownes would not have grown it that thick (assuming he could).

The Oakmont members may relish a diabolically tough course, but I don't think even the charter members would have been crazy about replacing several clubs per season.

« **Reply #16 on:** June 18, 2007, 06:35:59 PM »

A shot poorly played should be a shot irrevocably lost.

Recovery shots ought to be completely eradicated and eliminated from the game of golf.

Is there a difference between the two statements?

« **Reply #17 on:** June 18, 2007, 06:37:48 PM »

The items that are discussed in this thread...irrigated rough, narrow fairways, ultra thickvarieties of rough are some of the reasons I have always been amused by the word "restoration".....let's see..we take out all the trees to take it back..Oh..and then we add modern rough cut with modern mowers ......all hype and BS.....makes no sense.....

« **Reply #18 on:** June 18, 2007, 07:42:06 PM »

Mike,

That gets back to the thread from a couple weeks ago where people were suggesting that removing trees somehow makes the course more difficult. I believe they were picturing several inches of rough where the trees used to be in which case the premise is correct. My contention was that while tall rough might be more penal than for instance pine trees, the old courses before any trees were there were almost certainly easier.

« **Reply #19 on:** June 19, 2007, 11:32:33 AM »

Mike -

If Oakmont is all hype and BS, then I'm all for hype and BS.

Quote from: Brent Hutto on June 18, 2007, 07:42:06 PM

Mike,

That gets back to the thread from a couple weeks ago where people were suggesting that removing trees somehow makes the course more difficult. I believe they were picturing several inches of rough where the trees used to be in which case the premise is correct. My contention was that while tall rough might be more penal than for instance pine trees, the old courses before any trees were there were almost certainly easier.

Was it easier than now?

Certainly.

Could they have grown the thick rough of now then?

Almost certainly not.

But you are overlooking the most important question, imho:

Is thick penal rough in keeping with Mr. Fownes philosophy?

I would think so. This is a man who made the famous "shot lost irrevocably" statement. Legend has it he followed golfers around, placing bunkers where errant shots strayed.

Is there any reason to believe he would've balked at agronomic advances that allow for thicker, more penal rough?

I don't think so.

Do I prefer it? No, but I'm not Mr. Fownes and it's not my course. It's the members', and I think they are doing a wonderful job maintaining his intent.

The removing of the trees was not to make the course tougher. Oakmont with trees was super tough as well. It was to restore the look and play of a links. No trees = firmer and faster conditions. And more wind influence. I think difficulty-wise, it is now maybe a little harder, but the important thing was that Mr. Fownes envisioned a links. I personally would also argue that it has encouraged more daring play, which is always a good thing.

« **Reply #20 on:** June 19, 2007, 11:41:48 AM »

Ogilvy's been very consistent in his dislike of heavy rough, especially around the greens. I don't see his remarks as whining at all.

I wonder what the "rough penalty" was from the heavier rough, discounting shots played from the first cut. I'd bet it was close to a full shot.

« **Reply #21 on:** June 19, 2007, 01:33:59 PM »

I wonder what the "rough penalty" was from ten feet off the green. Versus being on the green or fringe I guarantee it was a full stroke at least.

« **Reply #22 on:** June 19, 2007, 04:04:46 PM »

Quote from: George Pazin on June 19, 2007, 11:32:33 AM

Mike -

If Oakmont is all hype and BS, then I'm all for hype and BS.

But you are overlooking the most important question, imho:

Is thick penal rough in keeping with Mr. Fownes philosophy?

I would think so. This is a man who made the famous "shot lost irrevocably" statement. Legend has it he followed golfers around, placing bunkers where errant shots strayed.

Is there any reason to believe he would've balked at agronomic advances that allow for thicker, more penal rough?

I don't think so.

George,
IMHO I think he may have balked.....
The rules of golf never mention the word rough.....however the item is taken to extremes.....you can play out of sand....it is easily possible to grow rough from which you cannot recover......I think it lessens the skill level and adds more luck....AND I also think that short grass around green complexes such as Oakmonts will create at least as many problems as long rough...maybe more....BUT that's me.....

« **Reply #23 on:** June 19, 2007, 04:06:17 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on June 18, 2007, 06:37:48 PM

The items that are discussed in this thread...irrigated rough, narrow fairways, ultra thickvarieties of rough are some of the reasons I have always been amused by the word "restoration".....let's see..we take out all the trees to take it back..Oh..and then we add modern rough cut with modern mowers ......all hype and BS.....makes no sense.....

Hear, hear.

« **Reply #24 on:** June 19, 2007, 05:12:27 PM »

Quote from: Mike_Young on June 19, 2007, 04:04:46 PM

The rules of golf never mention the word rough.....however the item is taken to extremes.....you can play out of sand....it is easily possible to grow rough from which you cannot recover......I think it lessens the skill level and adds more luck....AND I also think that short grass around green complexes such as Oakmonts will create at least as many problems as long rough...maybe more....BUT that's me.....

I agree with pretty much all of this, myself, but Mr. Fownes seems to have designed a much sterner test. I'd be surprised if he didn't applaud advances in rough grass. Heck, he'd probably be out inventing new strains!

News:

Rick Shefchik

tlavin

Garland Bayley

Garland Bayley

Brent Hutto

tlavin

Garland Bayley

tlavin

Garland Bayley

Jim Nugent

David Stamm

George Pazin

RJ_Daley

TEPaul

David Stamm

Rick Shefchik

Greg Murphy

Mike_Young

Brent Hutto

George Pazin

Tim Pitner

Brent Hutto

Mike_Young

Mike Hendren

George Pazin