[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Since Travis never saw 1928 I felt it was appropriate to say he died by 1927.

I wonder, if you were writing a book on Travis, would Flynn become a stepchild ?  

I was trying to point out the disparity in their ages, the formulating of their design philosophies and the likely time line regarding the two.

As to the quote, TEPaul repeats me all the time, but he's hardly the author of the idea, he's merely a parrot, repeating the words of wisdom that I've chosen to impart upon him.
Is it fair, when he quotes me, to attribute those erudite remarks to him, or, should credit go to the real author ?  

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

According to Shackelford's book, the quote does indeed belong to Travis, that is where I got it from...unless I just read it wrong which is also possible

[wsmorrison]

MWP,

The message is the important thing and I'm glad you brought it up for conversation.  I'm sure most of those dead guys would be dismayed at the state of golf today--except for the agronomy.  My feeling is they'd be pleasantly amazed.

[George Pazin]

Patrick -

You'll note I chose my words quite carefully. I said the line of thinking is dangerous, not wrong. I probably should also have qualified "This leads to..." and instead written "This often leads to...", in retrospect. I don't doubt that Travis utilized wide fairways and playing corridors, but what I fear is that, like most things in life, you can have too much of a good thing, whether it's heavy rough or ultra wide fairways.

As I said, my concern is that people learn the wrong lessons from the US Open textbook. I think the bigger factor in scoring is firm and fast conditions, not the heavy rough. I also think that the type of golf that grows out of firm and fast conditions is far more entertaining than the type that grows out of the use of heavy rough as a hazard.

I take great comfort in the fact that Mackenzie was not a fan of heavy rough, and I do prefer Seve golf to Reid golf, or Kite golf, or Strange golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

As I said, my concern is that people learn the wrong lessons from the US Open textbook. I think the bigger factor in scoring is firm and fast conditions, not the heavy rough.

I also think that the type of golf that grows out of firm and fast conditions is far more entertaining than the type that grows out of the use of heavy rough as a hazard.
Both are combined at GCGC.[/color]

I take great comfort in the fact that Mackenzie was not a fan of heavy rough, and I do prefer Seve golf to Reid golf, or Kite golf, or Strange golf.

I"m not so sure I endorse width to the extent that golfers can play recovery shots from adjacent parking lots.[/color]

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I am very sorry, Iknow that the message is the main purpose of this thread..but I stand corrected...it was indeed Flynn....I am very sorry for my mistake..please accept my apology

[Gary_Mahanay]

Michael,

Have you ever played Texarkana CC with four inch rough?  Yes, I'm talking four inch common bermudagrass where if not for the fore caddies it would have taken forever to finish.  I have at the 91' Hogan event that they had there and it was a booger bear, ask some of your older members.  You're on the right track.  Even as short as it played then, there was a definite penalty for not being in the fairway.  It was a very fair test of golf.  Good thread.  Hadn't thought about it much till you brought it up.  You got the right idea.

Gary

[JohnV]

As long as we're quoting famous architects, Dr. Mackenzie said, "In this connection it may be pointed out that rough grass is of little interest as a hazard. ...
Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers.  They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game, and in causing a stilted and cramped style by destroying all freedom of play."

The key is as George said, having firm enough greens to make players want to hit the fairway so that they have more control over their next shot.

The USGA has always said that missing a fairway should cost 1/2 stroke and over the years, they've had statistics that show that to be true at the US Open.  Last week, Tiger, Phil and Vijay hit a combined total of 84 of 168 fairways (50%).  They only bogied 13 of the 168 par 4s and 5s.  Assuming all those bogies came from the fairways they missed (which I'm sure they weren't), it was only .19 strokes, not the .5 the USGA would like to see at the US Open.  I'm not arguing for US Open rough every week, but something more like .3 or .4 might cause them to try to straighten things out.  I'm sure that they made more birdies than bogeys from the rough.

[Patrick_Mucci]

MWP,

Don't appologize, Flynn plagiarized that line from Travis.

Wayne and TEPaul also attribute the following lines to Flynn:

One if by land, two if by sea.
Four score and seven years ago.
Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country.
Sheep lie.

It's all in their book, which was recently reclassified as fiction.

[Gary_Mahanay]

JohnV,

I'm with you on the MacKenzie statement.  I hate high rough when we're playing a casual round of golf.  But when Phil, Tiger and Vijay are playing together then they have three or four fore caddies and don't have to hunt for their golf balls (at least in the United States) the round doesn't last forever.  That 59 that Phil shot in Hawaii last November, may have been a 79 at a US Open set up.  But like you, the firmer you can get the greens the more you can neutralize the square grooves from the light to moderate rough.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

Gary,
Yes, I know the rough you are talking about, we let it grow to 3 inches every summer..and for this years state matchplay to be held at Texarkana, it will be 3/4 inches tall...that I can promise you

I was there as a spectator in 91..is that the year Perry Moss won?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()