How is it that 2 non-members make decisions for the club?

Matt, isn't there another factor -- the slope of the fairway and the rough?  Very very hard to hold your drive in the 17th fairway, when they cut it to U.S. Open width.  So lots of those approach shots come out of the right-hand rough, which they cut to U.S. Open height.  

When the course plays F&F, and they narrow down the #17 fairway to U.S. Open width, how big is the effective landing area on your drive, if you want to hit your 2nd shot from the short grass?  

As a fan of watching golf, I'm getting a little tired of the USGA changing all of these holes on courses from one par to another, moving tees around, etc. How about just playing the course as it was designed? It's okay to have four par 5s on a course you know. Their obsession with par is now beyond me.

Matt:

Texas Tech or Texas A&M----what's the diff? It's all the same to me.

Kevin or Matt----what's the diff?  

Glenn,

I just think there's some kind of disconnect when only 5-10% of guys are hitting the green in regulation.

The difficulty is that it's incredibly hard to land a ball on the green and stop it, but there's no way to run it up, either.

I just think that if we expect guys to approach from 200+ yards, there should be some way to play a shot with a reasonable chance of hitting the green. The evidence from this past week is that guys don't have a reasonable chance of hitting that green from over 200 yards away.

Realize that a 200 yard approach assumes a drive of 291, uphill, into the wind, in heavy air! So 220 yards or more is a distinct possibility, which would require a 5-wood or a 2-hybrid into the green.

If our response is that, well, a guy can just lay up if the green is too hard to hit - I agree, but in that case we should call it what it is: a par-5.

Glenn,

I just think there's some kind of disconnect when only 5-10% of guys are hitting the green in regulation.

The difficulty is that it's incredibly hard to land a ball on the green and stop it, but there's no way to run it up, either.

I just think that if we expect guys to approach from 200+ yards, there should be some way to play a shot with a reasonable chance of hitting the green. The evidence from this past week is that guys don't have a reasonable chance of hitting that green from over 200 yards away.

Realize that a 200 yard approach assumes a drive of 291, uphill, into the wind, in heavy air! So 220 yards or more is a distinct possibility, which would require a 5-wood or a 2-hybrid into the green.

If our response is that, well, a guy can just lay up if the green is too hard to hit - I agree, but in that case we should call it what it is: a par-5.

As I've heard many time on this site...who says a player must have a good chance at hitting a Green in Regulation??  

Kalen,

I think the issue is that when it becomes so incredibly difficult to hit one's golf ball into a good position, and everybody basically ends up in a tough position, it doesn't do a whole lot to separate good second shots from not-so-good ones.

One guy hits a majestic iron shot that hits the middle of the green and bounces through into high rough. Another guy tries to run it through a 15-foot opening from 220 yards uphill, misses by 3 feet, and he's in high rough as well. Another guy hits an ugly low thin slice and ends up in high rough, same as the other two guys.


Jamie,

I'd say no. On #17 it's simply about the difficulty of the target. I saw plenty of good shots into #1 and #3 from 240 or so.

Kalen,

Agreed.

In which case the second shot is of little value - a wedge or 9-iron to anywhere in the fairway; and in fact a shot that could be played almost equally well from the rough, maybe leaving 120 yards instead of 90, not a really big difference.

There's no good place to miss around the green. There's a dropoff right, but the slope of the green makes the left side a terrible place to miss.

I know I'm taking things to a bit of a logical extreme, but I still would prefer a setup where players were more rewarded for hitting two good shots in a row.

David,

I'd guess 2,000 on Sunday afternoon.

There weren't many people until the weekend though. Jamie Lovemark's Thursday afternoon match had less than 100 people until the other matches finished and the entire gallery was following him; at that point, maybe 200-300.

Walking up towards the 10th green during the Vegas v. Knost match on Saturday.

Jamie Lovemark's Thursday afternoon match had less than 100 people until the other matches finished and the entire gallery was following him; at that point, maybe 200-300.

Are you counting the two Trojans I saw, who seemed to be more interested in the bunkers and rough lines than the plight of their Boy of Troy?

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on August 29, 2007, 01:37:08 PM

Michael - remember the famous Johnny "43 putts" Miller v. Jack Shell WWOG match several years ago?

Did the USAm get crowds like that?

That was a pretty massive crowd for that thing.

TH

Hucks, I remember watching it on TV and thinking how large that gallery looked for that match. It was amazing. Atypical  weather that day as well, which really added to the auora of the place. Jeez, JM was awful!

I was there, as were Mike and a few other knuckleheads from this forum. It was a very large crowd.  I wouldn't say the weather was atypical though... it was overcast but not cold, kinda standard coastal weather.  But yes, JM was BRUTAL.  I charted shots that day and cringed every time he missed another putt.  He did indeed have 43 putts for 18 holes.

Anyway, Mike's pic looks a sorta similar to how that day was, thus my question.  I was kinda bummed how little interest the USAm seemed to get....

TH

I think the configuration of 17 used for the Amateur is perfect for match play.

Thompson, down 1, hit first from the fairway and flared it right.

Colt, the gunslinger he is, wanted to finish the match on the hole and hit 5 wood onto the green.  He could have played conservative, hit a medium iron 40 yards short of the green and guarantee a 5 knowing that I would be nearly impossible for Thompson to make a 4.

Let's all thank God that he didn't play the hole that way. I like Colt a lot and in fact won a bet on him winning the thing, but to call him a gunslinger for attempting to hit the green from 220 or 230 is a little much. Are you under the impression that any self-respecting golfer in Colt's position would actually play the hole the way that you described?