The set of one shotters are solid though I wouldn't say any particular one is 'great'.

The # of right to left holes (the 2nd, 5th, 7th) outnumber the one left to right hole (the 12th) but that is hardly the end of the world. Straightening out the 13th might make sense in the context that it removed another right to left hole but it is hard to believe the new 13th tee ball is as interesting as the old diagonal one  

What are some other weaknesses? I'm blind as I'm such a huge fan but is there anything that keeps it from being viewed in the same class as the Royal Melbourne's and Oakmont's of the world?

The fact that RSG doesn't have a primary "name" architect behind it prevents a Colt or Fowler or Park groupie professing its greatness. Though plenty of people have had a hand in its evolution, the holes still seem to be cut from the same cloth. For instance, even though the 3rd green is 43 yards deep, I  don't recall it looking out of place with the rest of the course.

The strengths of RSG are many: setting,  topography, routing/changes of directions, set of two shotters, the humpy bumpy fairways, variety of green complexes seem world class to me. And the modified 14th appears to be a truly great hole - and I'm sure Tom Simpson would LOVE the OB aspect at such a crucial point in the round.  The converted 4th might be a great hole too and these two 'new' holes are nice compliments to each other, in part because these three shotters play in opposite directions.

If pressed to name three, I guess the 2nd, 7th and 11th are my least favorite holes but they are more engaging to play than the lesser holes on such beloved links as Royal Dornoch (7, 15, 16), Turnberry (1,2, 12) and several holes on the back at Royal Portrush.

What - if anything - is RSG lacking? I really don't know - on a hole for hole match play basis against the bullet-proof Shinnecock, the match ends halved in my book.

Cheers,

"The # of right to left holes (the 2nd, 5th, 7th) outnumber the one left to right hole (the 12th) but that is hardly the end of the world. Straightening out the 13th might make sense in the context that it removed another right to left hole but it is hard to believe the new 13th tee ball is as interesting as the old diagonal one  

What are some other weaknesses? I'm blind as I'm such a huge fan but is there anything that keeps it from being viewed in the same class as the Royal Melbourne's and Oakmont's of the world?"

Ran:

Although I've never been to RSG I'd say due to the firmness of the ground, lack of trees--the basic topography flanking some of the holes and particularly the real random dramatic movement within those very firm fairways that the fact that more holes go right to left than the other way does NOT make much difference at all.  It appears that many of these players can take tempting lines off the tee on some of those "turning" holes that may not make much difference as to how they turn.

It'd be very hard to compare RSG with a course such as Oakmont--they're so different in some significant ways, although the one similarity is the necessity to put the ball in the fairway somewhere despite tee shot distances (particularly for these guys). Failing to do that at Oakmont may be more penalizing though than what I can see being out in some of the rough areas at RSG. And although Oakmont can get quite firm and fast through the green it will never play with some of the serious run-in options that we're seeing so far at RSG.

Oakmont to me is not a links-style course--to me it's a uniquely center directed course where distance option off the tee is the real strategic consideration (given all the flanking hazards). In some ways the tee shot strategies of Oakmont remind me a lot of RCD though.

I wouldn't really say a course like RSG has weaknesses--it's such a good old random links-style course. From what I've seen its speed and super random topography is by far it's primary architectural feature. Those greens look to be very complex too (but that's hard to see on TV). It sure isn't hard to see the putts wandering all over the place on them though.

St Geoge's is  very good, but the set-up is starting to remind one a bit of Carnoustie. The fairways normally have more generous areas for well-struck tee shots to settle. With the R & A having narrowed them so much, reasonable shots have an unreasonably small chance of finishing on short grass, yes?

Ran,

Not to get away from the topic, but I would love to see your RSG-Shinnecock matchup posted if you should get the chance.

RSG looks terrific to me.

Scott

The carry over the "mother of all bunkers" on 4 is only 235.  Not much a risk for these guys (are good).

Is RSG a great golf course or what?

In addition to the things noted by Ran - his description of the fairways as "humpy bumpy" is nearly poetic - the back quadrants of the RSG greens fall off, usually into collection areas or black hole bunkers.

Not unique to links courses, but until The Open week I always forget how that single feature can mess with shot choices. Especially for US players. Especially when things are dry and fast. The back edge run-offs remove the usual expectations about ball behaviour. You can't just heave it in the air and stick it. Terrific stuff.

I've argued before that US Open set-ups have done more harm to architecture in the US than any other single factor.

I think you can turn that argument upside down with respect to the R&A. Notwithstanding some fairways that are too narrow at RSG and the fiasco at Carnoustie, overall The Open set ups have been a very good thing for architecture.

We've argued a lot here about the best way to combat the nutty distances these guys (are good) hit the ball. RSG points the way to some answers. imho.

I hope the USGA is watching.

Can't wait to play the course someday.

Bob  

     

Ran, all,

The 13th championship tee is the main weakness, but this was created so the circulation round the 12th green, 13th tee and 15th green was eased.  The bunkering has not been altered in strategy for this new tee because the usual tee will be back in operation asap.  The tee shot off the new tee is now wrong for the axes of the hole.

(They are all playing the wrong shot here anyway? If they hit there usual 225 yard 2 iron with 30 yards of run, this would only leave a mid to short iron)

Yes I agree with the consensus that number 1 is just a little penal for an opener.  I played there in April and the fairway was most probably 1.5 times wider.  The kitchen isn't even in use because of the south westerly wind (never seen at RStG).

The best par 4 in our area is now a par 5 (4th) thats a sorry state of affairs.  A wonderful par 4! average par 5!  I'm sure this is only to give the players some rest bite.

I disagree with the par 3 comment though.  The tele is doing them no justice.  They are all individual and different - not many courses can say that.  The clubs all vary and play in differing directions.  There green formations are to be studied as I believe they are some of the best around - but most importantly they play fair!

When you guys actually go to RStG and see the par 3's you will change your mind.  The 3rd is a stunning par 3 set into 3 big dunes, the 6th (even thiough I agree with tommy about the maiden) is a fine one shotter surrounding with deep sand and sloping green.

The 11th has one of the best rear bunkers in golf positioned perfectly for an over cooked shot from an elevated tee and the 16th has a fantastic green formation, large with subtle slopes with run offs on all sides into deep bunkers.

If you go to Jeremy Glenns thread "aerial of RStG" then go to Scotts AOTD and look to the northerly point of the picture, you can see where the original 13th tees are in relation to the 12th green.  Close!  

The picture is old because it doesn't show the new tee some 50 yards right and back of the current 12th green.  They have also added 2 bunkers in on the left just infront (in yardage) of the bunkers on the right.  The strategy of the hole is far better from the old tee where you took your line off of the old Princes GC clubhouse.

The main weakness is that the greens arent well enough protected--  they have virtually no greenside bunkering and appear to rely on (gasp) undulations and angles of approach as their major defense.  As has been repeatedly espoused on this board and elsewhere "these guys are good."  With their length and ability to accurately spin and place their irons, angles and contours just cannot slow them down-- They can stick it anywhere!  

Also, the course is terribly unfair, and the winner will be whoever gets lucky.  The announcers have repeatedly said this so it must be true.    

Plus, in his post round interview Tiger gave a perfect example of the unfairness:  He hit a driver up the middle on 17 and his ball ended up just in the rough!  Then he hit a high, easy six iron directly at the pin and it had the nerve to roll back off the front, leaving him a very difficult putt from off the green. How unfair is that!  [Sergio just got lucky by hitting his low and short and running it up from the opposite rough.]

JJSE

Yes, unfair. Unfair indeed!   I dont have to play it to know it, for any course that wont treat well Tiger's majestic 6 irons is an unfair and a silly test.   Sergio's shot was bouncing along the ground.  The GROUND!   That is not golf . . . my grandmother can bounce it along the ground and she has been dead for 20 yrs.  

As for the greens being protected, perhaps you havent been reading this board carefully enough.  The consensus is that undulation and angle is not enough to stop these fine players . . . without resort to unfairness of course.  

JJSE,
Please do understand that David is proving a point, and a good one at that.

For some unknown reason, we have a "plethora" of players today that think they are above the game as far as talent is concerned, aided by their Titliest 987,000K drivers and a golf ball that turns into an air foil at impact. This makes them "Experts."

What David is trying to express, and which I totally agree, is how that attention to fate and luck an skill is what should be predominant to the Game, and that "Defense of the Golf Hole***" should start at the green, as per Wethered & Simpson and many others who see this as the sporting way in which to play the Game.

Long Live Courses Like Royal St. George's!

(***Defense at the hole does not neccessarily mean protecting with neccessary bunkering that provides a penal aspect on or near the hole. It means exactly what you see at Royal St. George, the ability to run the ball in through feel and the knowledge of green contours, crowns, slopes, dips and dives, and channels, all the while, realizing these features when trying to decide where to put the ball on the green in relation to the PIN. Throw FATE in there while your at it! Long Live The Game of Golf!)

Just like the 17th at Shadow Creek.  Oppps! I just made it personal!

[Post of the year to date...wish Mark Lye would see it. And understand it.

George,

I heard Mark Lye yesterday on WFAN the sports radio in New York as I was driving. I thought maybe he was playing to the non-golf sports audience, but from what I heard, he will never understand it. He has only played in 1 British Open to date, however he is going over for the Senior British Open @ Turnberry in a few weeks.

RSG looks awesome !!

Seeing replays from yesterday of Davis Love's chip on to #18, makes me want to jump on the next Virgin Atlantic flight to Heathrow. Did you see the break on that thing?!?!?!

I am having a problem with watchig it n TV though, and I hate to complain, but the TNN announcing sorta sucks, and even worse was Bobby Clampett's rambling on this morning when the BBC feed took over on a few of the holes. What was he talking about? Did anybody understand what he was saying? BRING BACK BEN WRIGHT!

Another thing is that this constant showing of nothing more then putting and then commericials; putting and commericials ruins what seems to be a very interesting Championship. I can say right now, that long ago, I tired of seeing professional golf in person. Today is the one tournament I wish I was there witnessing.