[Steve Lapper]

Does the USGA diminish the championship by playing at courses like Winged Foot, Oakmont and Pinehurst, then going to the lesser ones, i.e. Torrey Pines, Southern Hills?

Should they have a smaller roster?

Mark,

    While the jury is out on the real merits of Torrey Pines, I'd hardly call Southern Hills a "lesser" Open course.  The "Fast and Firm" test to reveal the Open's best golfer is the avowed desire of the USGA. Just that has been well achieved at Southern Hills. Have you ever played it?

   As for Torrey Pines, it's clearly an attempt by the Far Hills Gang to recreate a Bethpage-style public dynamic on the left coast. Quite transparent and subject to disappointment IMHO!

[Craig Van Egmond]

Mark,

            You didn't just lump Perry Maxwell's gem Southern Hills in with Torrey Pines did you? Southern Hills is an incredible golf course and will become the first course to host 4 PGA championships next year. This is in addition to the 3 US Open championships and 5 other amateur championships.  Lesser venue? I don't think so.

[JESII]

Matt,

Just so I'm clear, and not wanting to go off-topic (so feel free to reply via IM), what did you see as the contrivance at Shinnecock?

[mike_malone]

 From what I am reading it sounds like WFW would be a great par three course.

[Matt_Ward]

Many times the New York metro area gets plenty of noise from those out of the area who complain -- and sometimes with merit -- that too often the major events don't come to their neck of the woods.

Frankly, the New York area has three (3) very special and unique layouts with the likes of Shinnecock, Bethpage Black and Winged Foot / West. I can't imagine having three other courses anywhere in the USA that can match, let alone surpass, the sheer qualities each provides.

The key for the USGA is not to get so determined / dogmatic to lay their fingerprints on Winged Foot. As others have opined and I have also mentioned -- the spirit of Winged Foot / West is already there. One doesn't need hay-like rough in order to "strengthen" the design. That's the tact one needs to do with inferior courses.

Mark F:

I don't believe the US Open is lessened when going to other courses. However, I don't believe there needs to be some sort of politically correct formula that mandates that all sections of the USA must have an Open every so many years.

The high quality layouts -- which also encompass the internal logistics in staging such an event -- are in fact quite limited. Of all the recent additions the most noteworthy was the inclusion of Bethpage / Black into the unofficial rota of courses. Why the US Open is going to Torrey Pines still baffles my mind.

Gents:

One other things to keep in mind -- if you notice the green dimenions and shapes at WF / West and compare them to BB you can clearly see that Tillie had little to no role in shaping the latter. If he had the overall qualities of BB would surpass WF / West given the sheer scale and dimensions of the property on the Island when compared to the parksland site in Westchester.

If I had to name a really unique par-4 that is not super long it's the qualities of the 11th -- just under 400 yards from the tips and chock full of unique design attributes. Here you play from a slightly elevated tee that sits upon a rock cropping. The fairway heaves slightly from right to left and there is well-placed fairway bunker that cuts in right about 270 yards from the tee. The green is neatly pitched from upper left to lower right but it is far more demanding than just one simple movement.

Like the other key greens at Winged Foot / West you have a wave of subtle movements that can take your putt into different corners with little effort if you are not paying strict attention. The 11th will not be hole that much is said because it follows the par-3 10th and the ultimate concluding stretch of holes the players will encounter. If you want to appreciate the qualities of what Tillie did create a quick visit to the 11trh during the championship will reveal much.

[JESII]

Mike,

What you clearly missed when you were there was the fact that each tee shot asks you to shape the ball one way or the other, something not many courses can effectively do. And the compounding effect obviously elluded you as well, in other words, the tee shots gain interest and value due to the consequences of a poorly played one.

[mike_malone]

 Matt,

  I enjoyed #11 the most of any two shotter.


   JES II

    I saw what so many others have seen and what has been alluded to on this thread. The course is heavily weighted toward the green complexes for its challenge. I value a balanced challenge throughtout the hole.

[JESII]

Mike,

What about #'s 3 and 13? Certainly very interesting greens for your approach.

[mike_malone]

 I thought that the intimidation of the greens led to too many layups. This was my strategy on #3. Why bother trying to mess with those greens ? Is this what the architect intended ?

   Obviously, the pros will play it differently.

[Matt_Ward]

Mayday:

The spirit of th 3rd can be approached from different ways. In 1959 when Casper won the Open he played just short each day and pitched and putted for par. Such a strategy may be wise for many of the players who are not strong in the long game -- e.g. Toms, Weir, etc, etc.

The bigger problem you encounter at WF / West is being flag happy and thinking the course is an extension of one of the layouts you find at the Hope.

Tillie created a pear shape green at the 3rd and you simply must respect the fact that it's quite likely you can make two bogies in four tries on the hole without even breaking a sweat.

What you have to do is avoid any serious flare-ups with DB or worse. The neck in the front is only 10 yards across. I guarantee if the pin is front -- for at least round -- the more prudent play will be to lay-up short and pitch as Casper did.

[mike_malone]

 Matt,

   I would love to see a pin there. Do today's pros have the humility to make that play?

[Steve Lapper]

From what I am reading it sounds like WFW would be a great par three course.

Mike,

   And Rolling Green is a nice little executive course!

[Matt_Ward]

Mark:

If any of these players believes that attacking will win at Winged Foot / West they will be heading home after Friday.

The West requires total awareness to back off and accept what the course provides.

The 3rd is a good example -- ditto the 6th when the pin is placed in the front section.

The West will yield to great golf but as Fuzzy Zoellar said to me during the '84 US Open, "you've got to know what the hell you are doing out here." Sometimes a bit of humility in club selection goes a long way in possibly winning the event.

[tlavin]

I'd be surprised if the USGA erred too much on the side of caution, with regard to firm and fast. #2 was pretty firm and fast last year, and it may or may not be well known, but they were having some serious problems shortly before the Open. I haven't seen the USGA opt at all for TV green. If you watch the old broadcasts, US Open courses are routinely brown and baked out.

Is Winged Foot one of the only 36 hole complexes that does not ever use a composite course for major tournaments? I guess Olympic has 18 as well, yet they only use one for the Open. A true testament to the strength of each.

George:

I think it is very premature to predict whether Mike Davis will be "more cautious" than Tom Meeks, who he is replacing.  In fact, I think it is a little bit wacky to inferentially suggest that Meeks was incautious in his setup of various US Opens.  

In my judgment, and based on my limited experience, the USGA staff does a very conscientious job of attempting to walk a razor-thin line between very demanding conditions and borderline unplayable conditions.  They really try to push the envelope.  Sometimes it comes out perfect in retrospect (Bethpage, Pinehurst) and sometimes they have major issues (Olympic, Shinnecock).  They are always dealing with weather, a huge element that they obviously can't control.

We have to remember that the USGA is generally looking for a much more demanding setup than the PGA tour.  In order to do that, they typically let the rough grow, which isn't all that difficult to do, and they want the greens to get within a hair's breath of dying, which is very difficult to do.  If they don't get any rain, they can get closer to their goal on the greens, but if the wind and sun are hyperactive, the greens can turn bad, as they did at Shinny.

At my club, Olympia Fields, the week leading up to the championship was wet.  The greens were velcro-sticky for the first two days and the pros took dead aim.  Everybody bitched and moaned that the golf course wasn't worthy or that the set up was too soft.  And maybe it was, but if it was, much of the softness was beyond their control.  As it developed, the sun came out and the wind shifted and the golf course got fast and firm and only four players shot par or better.

So, I think Mike Davis and his crew will push the course to its limits.  If they sense they are in trouble, they might water greens overnight, but I think you can count on a very crunchy crispy golf course and only a half dozen or so players under par.

[mike_malone]

 Steve,

   I don't want to go OT here but I think the challenge from tee to green on each shot and the variety of shots encountered as well as the enticement to take these challenges for the average golfer is better at RG than WFW.

[Steve Lapper]

Steve,

   I don't want to go OT here but I think the challenge from tee to green on each shot and the variety of shots encountered as well as the enticement to take these challenges for the average golfer is better at RG than WFW.

Mike,

    While I respect your opinion and really do believe that Rolling Green might be better than "a nice little executive course" and the "average golfer might be better enticed at RG," WFW is champtionship caliber course that doesn't deserve an even comparison to RG.....it is much, much more and will (with the right set-up) defend itself from the pro's much better than any set-up could ever deliver at RG. WFW is not a very fun course for the average golfer unless their definition of fun is to try to break 110!

[mike_malone]

 Steve,

  It sounds like we agree to a great extent. I just think golf is intended to be fun and some of these championship courses have employed maintenance practices that have moved the course way beyond its intent. I doubt Tillinghast wanted the green complexes to be that intimidating even though he talked of a tough course.

[AndrewB]

Matt, very interesting comments.  Thanks for the information on the course.

In sum for now -- the first four and the last four at Winged Foot will not yield many birdies -- you can lose it completely at the start and never recover.

Don't tell Ryan Moore about the last four: he birdied three of them in the final match of the 2004 US Amateur to win.

[Matt_Ward]

Andrew:

Hats off to Ryan Moore -- but freewheeling in a match play event and playing in your National Open is a bit different -- won't you say.

His play over the course of time during the Amateur was indeed stunning for his consistency and resolve.

But try to realize -- a set-up for the Amateur and the US Open is just a bit different.

JES II:

The contrivance at Shinnecock was the USGA's inane assumption that it needed to "help" the layout. I would have preferred if the USGA had maintained the playing characteristics of Shinnecock as it was for the first two rounds. Knowing the weather conditions the USGA deliberately went ahead with its game plan and the results sullied the event.

The USGA brass opted to push the limits of reason and what you got was silly outcomes -- the par-3 7th is just the most glaring.

Winged Foot / West doesn't need any "help." The course has proven itself for generations of the game's best players. That's why I am not a fam of this pursuit to grow rough in the range of 6-8 inches. Frankly, I have always believed that a course that HAS to have an inordinate amount of rough is a mask of an inferior or much weaker design.

The greens by Tillie at WF / West are, IMHO, among the very best he ever did. Just firm them up a tad and roll them out to 11-12 on the Stimp and let the best man win.

I love Shinnecock and would rate it the best course I have ever played in the USA. The USGA blew it in '04 and should not have anything close to that and I would sincerely hope  WF / West will play closer to what you saw in '84 rather than  the '74 event.

[Ian Andrew]

Could somebody please post some photos on this or a new thread for me. I would love to have a good look at the course.

Thanks,

Ian

[JESII]

Matt,

Thanks for that explanation, and well said.

I will disagree with you re: US Am setup as opposed to US Open setups. The match play versus medal play argument holds true, it is easier to get on a bit of a run in match play. The three Am's I played in were set up every bit as difficult as an Open would have been on those courses, in fact possibly tougher when talking about Pebble in '99. Pretty close though, I think the USGA uses the Am as a testing ground to a certain extent for what can and cannot work for an upcoming Open.

[George Pazin]

I'd be surprised if the USGA erred too much on the side of caution, with regard to firm and fast. #2 was pretty firm and fast last year, and it may or may not be well known, but they were having some serious problems shortly before the Open. I haven't seen the USGA opt at all for TV green. If you watch the old broadcasts, US Open courses are routinely brown and baked out.

Is Winged Foot one of the only 36 hole complexes that does not ever use a composite course for major tournaments? I guess Olympic has 18 as well, yet they only use one for the Open. A true testament to the strength of each.

George:

I think it is very premature to predict whether Mike Davis will be "more cautious" than Tom Meeks, who he is replacing.  In fact, I think it is a little bit wacky to inferentially suggest that Meeks was incautious in his setup of various US Opens.

...

So, I think Mike Davis and his crew will push the course to its limits.  If they sense they are in trouble, they might water greens overnight, but I think you can count on a very crunchy crispy golf course and only a half dozen or so players under par.

Hi Terry -

Just to clarify, I think I said, or at least tried to say, something along the lines of what you said. I am all in favor of firm and fast - I thought the setup at Shinney was perfect, save maybe #7 - and have zero problem with brown and crunchy, so if you were referring to me when you said it was wacky to inferentially suggest Meeks was incautious in his approach, then either you are reading my post wrong, or I was not clear in my meaning.

I enjoyed the Open at Olympia Fields, and think it was petty of folks to suggest it wasn't set up properly the first 2 days. You can't control Mother Nature. Ironically enough, I'd guess it was many of the same people who blamed the USGA for a too-easy setup early at OF who blamed the USGA for a too-tough setup at Shinnecock the following year.

Hope that clarifies things.

 

[Mike_Sweeney]

Could somebody please post some photos on this or a new thread for me. I would love to have a good look at the course.

Thanks,

Ian

Ian,

I don't have time to post a bunch, but here is WFW #18 during the 2004 US Amateur, then go to Ran's profile from 1999 and think 50% of the trees are gone and a bunch of greens are larger today.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/wingedfoot1.html

[Anthony Butler]

... I think it is a little bit wacky to inferentially suggest that Meeks was incautious in his setup of various US Opens.  

In my judgment, and based on my limited experience, the USGA staff does a very conscientious job of attempting to walk a razor-thin line between very demanding conditions and borderline unplayable conditions.  They really try to push the envelope.  Sometimes it comes out perfect in retrospect (Bethpage, Pinehurst) and sometimes they have major issues (Olympic, Shinnecock).  They are always dealing with weather, a huge element that they obviously can't control.

We have to remember that the USGA is generally looking for a much more demanding setup than the PGA tour.  In order to do that, they typically let the rough grow, which isn't all that difficult to do, and they want the greens to get within a hair's breath of dying, which is very difficult to do.  If they don't get any rain, they can get closer to their goal on the greens, but if the wind and sun are hyperactive, the greens can turn bad, as they did at Shinny.

Terry, in explaining the USGA's recent course set-ups you seem to have defined the word incautious. If you are being truly cautious you would not allow the possibiliy of the weather playing such a large part in playing conditions.

I mean how hard is it to predict that it might be sunny and windy on the end of Long Island in summer? Also there are such things as long range weather forecasts which Meeks seems to have paid as much attention to as the FEMA folks before Hurricane Katrina. Besides the wind wasn't that strong-compared to what you get out at NSWGC I'd call it a pleasant breeze.  

[AndrewB]

Hats off to Ryan Moore -- but freewheeling in a match play event and playing in your National Open is a bit different -- won't you say.

I happen to have a LOT of respect for this "match play event" and I don't think I'd use the term "freewheeling" to describe playing in the match to win it (especially if you're two down with four to play, as Moore was).  If anything, I've always felt that match play was more mentally challenging than stroke play.

And, don't forget that the US Amateur consists of two rounds of stroke play and six matches (the last being 36 holes) over seven days.  That certainly seems more taxing to me than four rounds of stroke play.

I'm not trying to start anything, I swear.

As for course setups, I'll defer to those who have actually played in either of these events.  But, I will say, the US Amateur setups I have seen (Baltursol, Oakmont, Merion) have looked just as difficult as the US Open setups I have seen (Baltusrol, Shinnecock Hills, Pebble Beach).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()