Why do we like the British Open so much ?

« **Reply #25 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:02:17 AM »

You guys finally get to see those slow green speeds you all pine about...I personally would like to see a touch more speed.

« **Reply #26 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:07:27 AM »

This is all nice and poetic and charming.... but... I love the Open for one reason and one reason only:

It comes on here on the west coast at Tommy Time - that is, damn early in the morning, when I'm awake anyway, but no one else is. God I love those early morning Open viewings...I watched 90 minutes before going to work today. Sat and Sun mornings are gonna be fantastic.

TH

« **Reply #27 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:19:09 AM »

A slight veer from the topic - Did anyone see Furyk putt out of the bunker and have the ball turn before entering the adjacent bunker? What a pinball wizard move that was.

« **Reply #28 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:22:33 AM »

Jax, who pines about slow green speeds?

People don't want to see greens flattened for the sake of more speed, that's not at all the same thing.

« **Reply #29 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:27:37 AM »

George - right on bruthah - and there is absolutely no goofy golf at Hoylake, from what I can see - and there wouldn't be even if it sped up even more!

JK missing the point? Par for the course.

« **Reply #30 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:31:36 AM »

I have always thought the green speeds at the BO stunk..Are American supers just that much better...Why are the greens so slow if it does nothing to protect the architectual strategies...

« **Reply #31 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:42:29 AM »

What makes you think the greens are slow? I don't believe they ever are for any Open outside those doused by rain.

But it's also a different type of grass, John. You'd have to kill the grass completely to get that fescue to run as fast as our bent.

TH

« **Reply #32 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:45:20 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on July 21, 2006, 10:31:36 AM

I have always thought the green speeds at the BO stunk..Are American supers just that much better...Why are the greens so slow if it does nothing to protect the architectual strategies...

I would guess almost all supers are terrific at their job. The tough part is getting the Green Committee to give them the right marching orders.

As for The Open, it might get silly if it got too fast, and it appears as though the R&A (correctly, imo) values firm over simply fast, even if that means the greens end up a trifle slow, relatively speaking, of course.

« **Reply #33 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:53:24 AM »

George - I really don't think that's it at all.

Look at the brown areas near the greens, on some of the shoulders - those have to be running 12+ on the stimp (if one could stimp slopes like that).

If they let the greens get that way, they'd die. Or at least they'd have a hell of a time returning to any form of life... as those brown areas on the shoulders will now.

That's fine for those areas - and the fairways really - eventually they will come back, they always do. And it's no big deal to anyone to have to hit approaches off of primarily dirt.

But I doubt the members of Royal Liverpool would be happy putting on dirt for the lengthy time it would take the greens to recover.

Thus the greens do get enough water to keep them alive - that's why they continue to look greenish in color, not brown like the rest of the course.

And that's why they're also not crazy fast - because you simply can't get that grass to run crazy fast without killing it.

I think this is practicality more than any policy.

I also don't see those greens getting goofy even if they were killed for speed... they don't have all that much contour... do they?

TH

« **Reply #34 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:53:30 AM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on July 21, 2006, 10:31:36 AM

Are American supers just that much better...

Innocent question. Does faster always mean better?

« **Reply #35 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:58:47 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on July 21, 2006, 10:53:24 AM

I also don't see those greens getting goofy even if they were killed for speed... they don't have all that much contour... do they?

I don't think they'd be goofy to putt, but they might get goofy to approach.

You're probably right about keeping them alive. That is another area the R&A seems to err on the side of caution.

« **Reply #36 on:** July 21, 2006, 10:59:29 AM »

Quote from: Kirk Gill on July 21, 2006, 10:53:30 AM

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on July 21, 2006, 10:31:36 AM
Are American supers just that much better...

Innocent question. Does faster always mean better?

I'd say that consistantly fast greens 365 days out of the year is a sign of a better super..I would also guess it to be a fair assumption that tournament conditions are a touch faster than everyday..

« **Reply #37 on:** July 21, 2006, 11:04:50 AM »

Tom is right - the reason the greens are not faster is because conditions are too dry to allow them to be cut shorter.

« **Reply #38 on:** July 21, 2006, 11:15:49 AM »

I loved the Open before I could even play a lick. Part of it was the foreignness of the courses--they looked like nothing I had ever seen before. Another part of it was battling the elements. Sometimes parkland golf looks too much like a lawn game; links golf is not that. By the way, where are those elements this year? The course needs some wind.

« **Reply #39 on:** July 21, 2006, 11:21:54 AM »

George:

Just remember the first three words in Philip's post - it will save you so much time in our future discussions.

In terms of goofy golf, that's just an on the green term for me. BUT... hmmmm.. re the approaches, it can't get much firmer or faster than it is right now at Hoylake, or was last year at TOC. I mean there's only so firm concrete can get.

In any case, they sure aren't putting any unnecessary water on those - nor do I think they ever would.

TH

« **Reply #40 on:** July 21, 2006, 11:46:12 AM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on July 21, 2006, 11:21:54 AM

In terms of goofy golf, that's just an on the green term for me. BUT... hmmmm.. re the approaches, it can't get much firmer or faster than it is right now at Hoylake, or was last year at TOC. I mean there's only so firm concrete can get. In any case, they sure aren't putting any unnecessary water on those - nor do I think they ever would.

Think about how much the shots release at the current stimp. Then think about how much more they'd roll stimping higher. That's what I meant.

And I said earlier that the R&A values firm most highly of all, that's what I meant by potentially sacrificing a little speed. I'm no super - can't even play one on TV - but I'd think that if they wanted to speed up the greens, they'd have to water more and mow more, thus sacrificing firmness for speed, which would be bad, imho.

And BV -

Anyone who makes a statement like that should be forced to work the grounds crew for awhile, to alleviate his ignorance.

P.S. Anyone - Jax? - just see Sergio's chip? Still think the greens are too slow?

« **Reply #41 on:** July 21, 2006, 11:50:28 AM »

Quote from: George Pazin on July 21, 2006, 11:46:12 AM

And BV -

Anyone who makes a statement like that should be forced to work the grounds crew for awhile, to alleviate his ignorance.

Anyone who belongs to course with poor greens year after year should be forced to sit on the board, to alleviate the super.

« **Reply #42 on:** July 21, 2006, 11:51:22 AM »

George:

You're slipping into JakaB-land, missing and/or ignoring the point here. That's OK, I can see you're juggling several simultaneous discussions right now.

The point here is this:

a) the approaches can't GET much firmer nor faster than they are right now; and

b) the R&A isn't doing anything right now based on policy nor how they want the course to play, but rather simply keeping the greens alive.

Just go back to Philip's post. You're making way more out of this than is necessary.

TH

« **Reply #43 on:** July 21, 2006, 11:52:23 AM »

I concur, Tim.

The three majors all have their own flavor of difficulty. The British brings mother nature into the equation more than at any other event. It's most fun to watch when the players are challenged by wind and rain. I love watching guys putt when their pant legs are whipping around in the wind, especially back in the 70's when it was their plaid pants whipping around in the wind.......what can I say.

Add to that the different look of the courses and the tv coverage, unfamiliar good players, crusty old guys with cool hats in the galleries.................

« **Reply #44 on:** July 21, 2006, 12:01:55 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on July 21, 2006, 11:51:22 AM

George:

You're slipping into JakaB-land, missing and/or ignoring the point here. That's OK, I can see you're juggling several simultaneous discussions right now.

The point here is this:

a) the approaches can't GET much firmer nor faster than they are right now; and

b) the R&A isn't doing anything right now based on policy nor how they want the course to play, but rather simply keeping the greens alive.

Just go back to Philip's post. You're making way more out of this than is necessary.

TH

You're the one that's disagreeing with me, when I'm trying to agree with you!

I didn't say anything about the approaches, I simply meant that if the greens were faster, as Jax wants, you'd have to add in even more room to let the ball release, wouldn't you? What are you going to do on some of those holes? Land it in front of a bunker, bounce it over and let it release? Or simply watch it roll even further off? That's a goofy approach to me.

Also, one of the board supers chimed in on the Sympathy for the Grass thread and said the grass would go dormant first, and that it's a good ways from dying.

SO THERE!

« **Reply #45 on:** July 21, 2006, 12:06:43 PM »

So there what?

I've said all along it's not really dead, but that it takes a long time to get back to how they want it. The members of RL would not want to putt on dormant/brown putting surfaces. Said super just agreed with me more or less.

I guess we're at odds here though - you keep arguing a point I think is completely moot, which is what I'm trying to tell you - the greens can't get any faster, nor can the approaches get any firmer or faster, so why bother contemplating what happens if they did?

TH

« **Reply #46 on:** July 21, 2006, 12:24:50 PM »

Gents,

Each major has it's own idiosyncracies. I've come accept the differences and how each course from the Master's to the PGA
has different shot projections, and what each tournament values by making those shots correctly.

At the BO, it's more of a ground game, than it is an air game. We need to accept it for what it is.

After the PGA and Glory's Last Shot, the post should be about which of the four majors has the "most fair" setup. Then, ask yourself this - would you want all 4 majors set that way each year? Me thinks not. BTW, if you say "yes", we already have that. It's called the PGA Tour.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

« **Reply #47 on:** July 21, 2006, 12:25:48 PM »

Quote from: Tom Huckaby on July 21, 2006, 12:06:43 PM

the greens can't get any faster, nor can the approaches get any firmer or faster, so why bother contemplating what happens if they did?

Sure they could get faster, but at the expense of firmness - more water + tighter mowing: the US formula for faster and less firm. That's what I've been trying to say to Jax. I'm not trying to argue with you at all. He's the one that said people are looking for slow greens.

Tom -

I wouldn't be disappointed if every major were set up like The Open.

I am disappointed watching normal Tour golf.

« **Reply #48 on:** July 21, 2006, 12:46:34 PM »

Bill,
They should be afraid of you..I am. Now do me a favor and go to my French vs Germany thread and give me an opinion. Honestly, last year was death and this year is kinda strange but if a guy blows it year after year I don't see how new blood could hurt. I lost two supers last year where I play and all I can say is thank God...My life is just better when the courses I play are in fine shape.

« **Reply #49 on:** July 21, 2006, 12:49:38 PM »

Well, Bill, I guess I misunderstood your previous post. It sounded you like said it was the weather, not the super. But you certainly would know your course much better than me, regardless of how much I got out.

News:

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

Tom Zeni

George Pazin

Tom Huckaby

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

George Pazin

Tom Huckaby

Kirk Gill

George Pazin

John Kavanaugh

Philip Gawith

Tim Pitner

Tom Huckaby

George Pazin

John Kavanaugh

Tom Huckaby

Kirk Gill

George Pazin

Tom Huckaby

Tom Zeni

George Pazin

John Kavanaugh

George Pazin