You guys are really starting to bother me!

« **on:** July 23, 2007, 09:31:34 AM »

I am sure Carnoustie is a wonderful golf course. It looks fantastic and I love links golf exponentially more than any other type, so it's a safe bet I'd love the course...BUT...

(1) Praising the setup? The fairways were no wider than any US Open I can remember...

(2) The setup allowed the charges Stricker on Saturday and Green and Romero and even Padraig on Sunday...The rain allowed those events, not the setup...

What would the winning score have been with little or no rain leading into the event? Over par without question.

Is it a good sign of the setup for the leading players in the event to hit mostly irons frm the tees on 450+ yard holes?

The only thing I can say the set up had to do with any of this is that they played the front tees most of the week. When the cameras were zooming in on a player from down the fairway you could usually see a tee pad behind the one they were on. Not sure if the stated measured yardages were from the tee used or the back tee...doesn't really matter to me...but there was a real concerted effort to make the course as easy as they could...

By the way, I loved the golf and thought it was great viewing yesterday and Saturday.

« **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2007, 09:40:32 AM »

For those who haven't played links golf it's important to remember the rough is usually a lot thinner than the US Open type 4" or 5" glass where the ball buries itself.

My impression is irons are usually played to avoid fairways bunkers which tend to result in a stiffer penalty than the parkland style beaches.

Little or no rain would have made for harder greens requiring a more controlled runing game but would have also made the rough thinner giving the players more control. Where the Open gives the players problems is a wet April, May & early June creating thick rough. A dry late June and July creating hard greens and fairways surrounded by very thick rough. Then strong winds during the event.

« **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2007, 01:19:10 PM »

The burn on #1 was OB when I played there twice.

« **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2007, 01:34:10 PM »

Sully, Ogilvy put it best when he talked about the recovery shot.

The set-up allowed for most balls hit off the fairway to have a chance for more than a punch out.

« **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2007, 01:53:44 PM »

Adam,

The piece Jamie posted by Ogilvy was very good...his ability to express his point of view in the context of his game and then the rest of ours as well as his understanding of how golf plays on television is very impressive. Seems like a smart and observant guy.

Was Carnoustie set up wider and more "options" oriented than Augusta?

How about the softness of the golf course? Did it occur to anyone that all that rain and so little wind were the primary reasons for the occassional great scoring?

Those are my issues...guys on here roast Augusta and the USGA for their course setups and praise the fact that this course (Carnoustie); set up from the short tees and fortunate to have really easy weather conditions and players shot some low scores...

Those of you that think the R&A set up their courses with no regard to par, please explain the short tees to me? Some of the tee boxes very clearly showed two tee pads behind the one in use...most were just one pad up, but some were two...

« **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2007, 02:12:24 PM »

Sully, Whether or not the R&A appreciates the value of entertaining us regular folks, and, whatever their reasons for handcuffing John Philip, it is almost universal that the show was top notch.

There's a perception problem with trying to compare Augusta and the US Open venues to what we all saw this week. I'll have to give it more thought but my first instincts tell me it has something to do with the little things, that make the big ones work. Or, not.

« **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2007, 02:28:02 PM »

See...I think the US Open and The Masters are usually top notch as well. Runaway wins are not so fun, but this year's Masters was fine by me. I thought the US Open was spectacular. I don't know...

What is the risk/reward of hitting a driver when you can pretty easily float it out of the thinned out fescue up onto the green? Is it just the bunkers that these guys were worried about?

« **Reply #7 on:** July 23, 2007, 03:08:35 PM »

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 01:53:44 PM

Was Carnoustie set up wider and more "options" oriented than Augusta?

Whilst not wanting to speak for all "the guys" on here, I think alot of people have criticised Augusta for changing the principles of its set up, not for what the set up was. THe consensus on here seems to be that there is room for each major to have its own character -a major with narrow fairways and a major with wide fairways, etc. I don't think there is any blanket opinion that wide fairways are good and narrow fairways bad.

As mentioned elsewhere, Carnoustie played true to its character and reputation, this is not the case with the setup at Augusta.

Quote

Those of you that think the R&A set up their courses with no regard to par, please explain the short tees to me?

Whilst I don't want to speak for the R&A either, there have been plenty of tournament committees that have set tee markers forward with the aim of providing exciting golf under the days conditions without Par or Score being a major factor in their decision making process.

« **Reply #8 on:** July 23, 2007, 03:18:17 PM »

David,

Thank you for the response. On the first part I can take no issue. On the second, I would ask you to give one example of a committee doing what you say..."set tee markers forward with the aim of providing exciting golf under the days conditions without Par or Score being a major factor"[/i]...

« **Reply #9 on:** July 23, 2007, 03:26:47 PM »

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 03:18:17 PM

David,

Thank you for the response. On the first part I can take no issue. On the second, I would ask you to give one example of a committee doing what you say..."set tee markers forward with the aim of providing exciting golf under the days conditions without Par or Score being a major factor"[/i]...

16th at Augusta

10th at The Belfry for Ryder Cup

I don't think it is unreasonable for think that the committee would stand on the tee at a particular hole and go though a thought process along the lines of "The wind is expected to come from this direction today, the roll in the fairways is this much, we think the hole will play best if we put the tees here."

I have been told this process happens at tournaments down her in Australia, it possibly is a similar process to the Open, I dont know. I just don't think that it is reasonable to assume that moving tee markers automatically indicates a concern with Score or Par.

« **Reply #10 on:** July 23, 2007, 03:33:59 PM »

Quote from: David_Elvins on July 23, 2007, 03:26:47 PM

I just don't think that it is reasonable to assume that moving tee markers automatically indicates a concern with Score or Par.

David,

Match Play has no score, so it doesn't fit in this conversation.

Moving the tee/pin combination on par 3's is very common. I'll give you that happening on most every par 3 in most every tournament played. That was not my point.

Carnoustie and the R&A have dealt with the over exuberant set up of 8 years ago for, well, 8 years...they wanted to shed that image for all time, and it appears they have...until the next time. The course looks awesome and must be incredibly difficult. They set it up short to help scoring and they got soft conditions with light wind and very little rough and still the winning score was only 7 under par.

« **Reply #11 on:** July 23, 2007, 03:46:31 PM »

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 03:33:59 PM

They set it up short to help scoring and they got soft conditions with light wind and very little rough and still the winning score was only 7 under par.

I just think you are making an assumption there as to their motives. Maybe they set some holes up short because of the wet conditions? To bring fairway bunkers into play? To encourage risk/reward options?

PS The 15th at Augusta is an example of a long hole where the tees have been moved up in wet conditions to encourage players to risk going for the green with their second.

« **Reply #12 on:** July 23, 2007, 03:58:11 PM »

Quote from: David_Elvins on July 23, 2007, 03:46:31 PM

PS The 15th at Augusta is an example of a long hole where the tees have been moved up in wet conditions to encourage players to risk going for the green with their second.

I wonder if anyone else on this board is aware of that...remember, so many fewer people went for the par 5's this year and it was all Augusta's fault for tryig to emulate the US Open...

« **Reply #13 on:** July 23, 2007, 04:13:24 PM »

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 03:58:11 PM

Quote from: David_Elvins on July 23, 2007, 03:46:31 PM

PS The 15th at Augusta is an example of a long hole where the tees have been moved up in wet conditions to encourage players to risk going for the green with their second.

I wonder if anyone else on this board is aware of that...remember, so many fewer people went for the par 5's this year and it was all Augusta's fault for tryig to emulate the US Open...

Geoff Shackelford wrote the following on his website during this years Masters - "Every time there was a wide view of a tee shot, it seemed the markers were placed as far forward as possible."

It was followed up wit the following comment from a reader - "tee flexibility is crucial; think of when they moved them up on the 16th at Hazletine on the Saturday (?) in the USPGA of 2002, or on several of the holes at Whistling Straits."

I really do think it is common at most majors. As you said, perhaps others can verify whether this is so.

« **Reply #14 on:** July 23, 2007, 04:21:42 PM »

David,

I may well be making an assumption...but I think it's a safe one...

Think about it...other than providing variety on the par 3's, why would you not move the markers around in an attempt to influence scoring?

« **Reply #15 on:** July 23, 2007, 04:28:52 PM »

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 04:21:42 PM

David,

I may well be making an assumption...but I think it's a safe one...

Think about it...other than providing variety on the par 3's, why would you not move the markers around in an attempt to influence scoring?

Other possible reasons for moving markers include:
-to bring drive bunkers into play.
-to bring the green on long holes into reach for more players.
-to bring water hazards into play.
-to increase risk reward options on short Par 4s and Par 5s.
-to provide variety from day to day.
-to make the approach shorter, encouraging more players to attack a certain flag position

« **Reply #16 on:** July 23, 2007, 04:56:46 PM »

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 09:31:34 AM

(1) Praising the setup?
The fairways were no wider than any US Open I can remember...

JES II,

They showed the graphics on the holes at Carnoustie.
The 1st fairway was 41 yards wide at the 270 yard mark, hardly U.S. Open type width.

You can't always judge dimensions by what the camera angles show.[/color]

(2) The setup allowed the charges Stricker on Saturday and Green and Romero and even Padraig on Sunday...The rain allowed those events, not the setup...

You can't attribute the inordinate number of 64's, and the field's great scoring, including Romero's birdieing 6 out of 7 holes on the rain, to the exclusion of the set-up.

In addition, you can't ignore the universal praise of the golf course and the set-up by the competitors.[/color]

What would the winning score have been with little or no rain leading into the event? Over par without question.

I don't know the answer, but, I can tell you that 52 degree temperatures, especially when coupled with rain, didn't help the scoring. [/color]

Is it a good sign of the setup for the leading players in the event to hit mostly irons frm the tees on 450+ yard holes?

That's the product of technology.
Whey guys are hitting irons off of 499 yard par 4's it tells you that hi-tech is thwarting the intended interfacing of the architecture with the golfer.

If a golfer hits his 2-iron 270-280, that would leave him 180-190, which today is a 6 or 7-iron.

I believe that Seve began that trend at Oakmont, years and years ago.[/color]

The only thing I can say the set up had to do with any of this is that they played the front tees most of the week. When the cameras were zooming in on a player from down the fairway you could usually see a tee pad behind the one they were on. Not sure if the stated measured yardages were from the tee used or the back tee...doesn't really matter to me...but there was a real concerted effort to make the course as easy as they could...

I agree, often, the announcers quote yardage that is not reflective of the play from the markers of the day.

On one hole the announcer claimed that Sergio had hit a 4-iron, yet, in his interview, Sergio stated that he hit a 3-iron.

I believe there's an unwritten policy to hype the distances.[/color]

By the way, I loved the golf and thought it was great viewing yesterday and Saturday.

That doesn't happen by accident.
It takes architecture that will produce high scores if errant shots or mistakes in judgement are made.

Hazards in the UK are hazards, they're not protected by yards of fronting rough. Most of those burns are mowed right up to the fronting bank, whereas, in America, 5 to 10 yard buffers of rough are maintained to form a safety net, stopping a ball from running into the burn.

Just think of Harrington's third stroke. In the U.S. that ball would have been sucked up by the buffer of rough BEFORE it ran into the burn, allowing for an easy approach and a two putt for an easy 6, versus, him having to hit his 5th stroke to within a few feet for a semi-miraculuous 6.[/color]

« **Reply #17 on:** July 23, 2007, 04:59:56 PM »

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 03:58:11 PM

Quote from: David_Elvins on July 23, 2007, 03:46:31 PM

PS The 15th at Augusta is an example of a long hole where the tees have been moved up in wet conditions to encourage players to risk going for the green with their second.

I wonder if anyone else on this board is aware of that...remember, so many fewer people went for the par 5's this year and it was all Augusta's fault for tryig to emulate the US Open...

That's not true.

You're ignoring the fact that a good wind was in their face on
# 15.

While ANGC can create conditions of play, they haven't figured out how to control and dial in Mother Nature[/color]

« **Reply #18 on:** July 23, 2007, 05:47:36 PM »

What other tee apart from 18 were the tee markers moved up on ? .

I also thought it was funny that for all the moans on here about Carnoustie playing soft , Boo Weekly still called it "the best bump and run course he had played ".

« **Reply #19 on:** July 23, 2007, 07:05:10 PM »

Many...

And...have you ever played golf on the Florida Panhandle?

« **Reply #20 on:** July 23, 2007, 08:12:39 PM »

"I wonder if anyone else on this board is aware of that...remember, so many fewer people went for the par 5's this year and it was all Augusta's fault for tryig to emulate the US Open..."

Sully:

I do not believe the reason so few players went for #15 ANGC in two was because of the narrower fairways or rough. It was simply because on Thursday, Friday and Saturday the greens were just too firm to go at a hole like #15 in two. They could reach it but it wasn't very likely they could hold it. On Sunday it was a different story. At least that's what I saw and that's what some of the players said.

« **Reply #21 on:** July 23, 2007, 08:49:48 PM »

Quote from: Patrick_Mucci on July 23, 2007, 04:59:56 PM

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 03:58:11 PM
While ANGC can create conditions of play, they haven't figured out how to control and dial in Mother Nature[/b][/color]

They're working on it

« **Reply #22 on:** July 23, 2007, 09:38:11 PM »

Quote from: David_Elvins on July 23, 2007, 04:13:24 PM

Quote from: JES II on July 23, 2007, 03:58:11 PM
Quote from: David_Elvins on July 23, 2007, 03:46:31 PM

PS The 15th at Augusta is an example of a long hole where the tees have been moved up in wet conditions to encourage players to risk going for the green with their second.

I wonder if anyone else on this board is aware of that...remember, so many fewer people went for the par 5's this year and it was all Augusta's fault for tryig to emulate the US Open...

Geoff Shackelford wrote the following on his website during this years Masters - "Every time there was a wide view of a tee shot, it seemed the markers were placed as far forward as possible."

It was followed up wit the following comment from a reader - "tee flexibility is crucial; think of when they moved them up on the 16th at Hazletine on the Saturday (?) in the USPGA of 2002, or on several of the holes at Whistling Straits."

I really do think it is common at most majors. As you said, perhaps others can verify whether this is so.

David:

The tee was moved up at Hazeltine on that Saturday because an enormous storm had come through the area the night before, and in its wake came freakish (for mid-summer), cold winds that were screaming off the nearby lake and into the players. The tourney officials were legitimately worried that the hole -- already one of the toughest at the course -- would be nearly impossible in those conditions. (Justin Leonard, on his way to the 3rd-round lead, played a marvelous, knock-down 7-iron to tap-in distance at 16 that year.) The hole usually plays low-to-mid 400s, and I believe that Saturday played @ 360.

Pete Dye designed WStraits with several shortish (for a course with fescue fairways) par 4s designed to encourage thoughts on the tee -- aggressive driver that brings in risk and reward, or iron/fairway wood with traditional length approach. The 10th is a very good example of this. But he also balanced it with several very long par 4s, including the controversial 18th.

« **Reply #23 on:** July 24, 2007, 02:31:59 AM »

JESII
"Many" ? .

Just another ill informed comment made to suit an argument .

You Guys have really started to bother me !

« **Reply #24 on:** July 24, 2007, 08:41:59 AM »

Brian,

Go watch the tape...I ran out of fingers and didn't want to take off my socks...

Ill informed it is not...poorly substantiated maybe, but not inaccurate...

News:

JESII

Mark Chaplin

Jim Franklin

Adam Clayman

JESII

Adam Clayman

JESII

David_Elvins

JESII

David_Elvins

JESII

David_Elvins

JESII

David_Elvins

JESII

David_Elvins

Patrick_Mucci

Patrick_Mucci

Brian_Ewen

JESII

TEPaul

John_Cullum

Phil McDade

Brian_Ewen

JESII