Over the past couple of years, Geoff Ogilvy has quickly become my one of my favorite tour players. More so for his excellent commentary on todays game and the current state of course architecture than for his equally excellent play.
Posted below is his article about Carnoustie and using rough in the current major setups. He didn't make the cut at the Open this year, but he should get a Claret Jug for commentary.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rough justice
GEOFF OGILVY
IF YOU are like most golfers I meet, you probably think that courses need to be as difficult as possible in order to challenge the very best players. And you probably think that part of that difficulty has to come from narrow fairways and thick rough, which is what we had here at Carnoustie back in 1999.
Well, I'm here to tell you that you are wrong. Rough is golf's most boring hazard and too much of it on any course can only lead to less interesting play. Rough misses the point of golf.
Think of it this way. On the Old Course at St Andrews the fairways are the widest in the world. You stand on the tee knowing you are not going to miss the fairway. So you knock the ball down there anywhere.
And, after doing that a few times, you suddenly realise you are not making birdies. So then you start to wonder: "Where do I need to be to make a birdie?"
Invariably, the pin position is the key to answering that question.
If the hole is cut on the right side of the green, the ideal approach needs to come from the left side of the fairway. Then, if you move the pin to the other side of the green, suddenly that ideal spot is 60 yards from where it was. To me, that's a lot more interesting than standing on a tee, looking down a narrow fairway and having any decision about where to go already made for me.
Sadly, that is exactly what happened here eight years ago. The par-5 sixth hole was particularly bad. Which was tragic, given how good a hole it is. Off the tee you have three obvious options. You can try to drive between the fairway bunkers and the fence on the left. You can hit up the right side. Or you can play short of the sand.
But the only option we had in 1999 was to lay-up short of the bunkers. The penalty for trying something more daring and missing far outweighed any reward. So everyone laid up, which left a long iron second shot into what was hardly more than a ten-yard gap. There's a little burn up there, too, one that people have discovered for the first time this year. Last time it was 20 yards into the rough! Now it's in play and you have to think about it when the hole plays into the wind. Thinking - what a concept eh?
Anyway, this year, we can lay-up to different points on the hole. We can lay back or try to hit close to the green, depending on the pin position. But the point is, we have choices.
The 15th hole was horrific last time, too. The fairway was so narrow and it slopes severely left to right. You can't have a 15-yard wide, sloping fairway with a strong crosswind blowing and the rough that thick. When we missed - and we all missed - we were all chipping out sideways.
It's commonsense really. Golf has to be more interesting if we can stand on tees and decide for ourselves what club to hit and where to hit it.
Take the fourth hole here at Carnoustie. In the first round last Thursday, the pin was tucked away behind the bunker on the left side of the green. So the ideal spot for the drive was actually ten yards or so into the rough on the right. Which was where I chose to hit. I was prepared to accept a less-good lie in order to create a better angle for myself. In the end, I pushed my drive a bit and ended up on the 15th fairway, which gave me an even better line in. But the fun part of the whole process was the standing on the tee and working it out.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not anti-rough necessarily. Rough like we have here this week gives the talented player a chance to recover.
Which is great and as it should be. The recovery shot might be the most exciting thing to watch at this level. But it disappears completely when the set up is overly penal. When that is the case, there is no point in being good at recovery shots; you'll never get to try one.
The obsession among the various tours around the world seems to be the score we shoot relative to par. We need to forget about par. Would a Wimbledon final be better if the net was higher? Or would the British Grand Prix be more exciting if you narrowed the track and everyone has to drive slower? I don't think so.
Yet again, I think of St Andrews. Two years ago we played the Open there and something like 18 under par won. Did anyone think that demeaned the golf course? I don't think so. The scores we shoot have no relevance to the quality of a golf course.
Look also at the 69 Tiger Woods shot in the third round of the US Open at what was almost a rough-covered Oakmont last month. We had the best golfer in the world - one of the two best ever - playing close to his best and he could manage only one under par? All that proves is that there is something wrong with the course.
Happily, none of the above has been the case here at Carnoustie, even if I did miss the cut. Take a close look at the way this great links has been set up this week.
This is the way your own course should be presented for the club championship. The rough is an annoyance but not the end of the world.
You have to hit two good shots on any hole to make a birdie. The greens are running at a speed where you can put the pin in almost any spot on almost every green. It has been a fascinating test.
Web links
Open website
http://www.opengolf.com Carnoustie website
http://www.carnoustie.co.uk