What does Ron Whitten think now?

« **Reply #25 on:** July 23, 2006, 04:46:44 PM »

Quote from: Robert Thompson on July 23, 2006, 02:19:08 PM

Quote from: Geoffrey Childs on July 23, 2006, 01:26:58 PM
Inky fisted peasant

For those who apparently missed it or were not watching, this was Peter Alliss' comment on those who critiqued the course prior to the open. While I don't entirely agree with Whitten's take, I must admit that taking the driver out of the hands of the best player in the world did not make for the most interesting viewing. There was little risk taking all week, and while I agree that Tiger's play and strategy was exceptional, you have to wonder what happened to hitting every club in the bag.... this wasn't a course that required that. Bring back Muirfield or a British Open course that actually requires a broad variety of shots that don't include 40 2-irons.

Thank you Robert - It was an attempt at humor.

John - sorry you did not see it and instead hopped on your high horse with the Golfweek comment. I speak/post here for myself and myself only.

Apologies to Ron Whitten if he too did not see my humor.

« **Reply #26 on:** July 23, 2006, 04:49:26 PM »

Geoffrey,

Look who chased Ron off this site and judge for yourself...Sometimes a guy gets on a wagon and misses the band..

« **Reply #27 on:** July 23, 2006, 04:56:51 PM »

John

Who chased him off this site? It cartainly wasn't me. I'm sure he still has a login and can use it any time. Many of us have taken a hiatus for different amounts of time and for different reasons.

« **Reply #28 on:** July 23, 2006, 05:02:55 PM »

Geoffrey,

It wasn't you...Today was the first time I recall you ever calling him a name. Do you really think he has the time to come on a site that disagrees with every thing he ever says (right or wrong)...Sure he has a choice to come here or not...just like Fazio and Rees..

Look at the above comments by Matt Ward...We should be happy Ron has taken an interest in design...Hell, even Ebert wrote a movie once.

« **Reply #29 on:** July 23, 2006, 05:15:38 PM »

Quote from: John Kavanaugh on July 23, 2006, 05:02:55 PM

Geoffrey,

It wasn't you...Today was the first time I recall you ever calling him a name. Do you really think he has the time to come on a site that disagrees with every thing he ever says (right or wrong)...Sure he has a choice to come here or not...just like Fazio and Rees..

Look at the above comments by Matt Ward...We should be happy Ron has taken an interest in design...Hell, even Ebert wrote a movie once.

John - I agree with you completely on this point. I think that having Ron Whitten contributing to this site would be a huge asset and a learning experience for all. I don't for the life of me know how to get him back just as I don't know how to get Rees or Faz here. What keeps Tom Doak, Brad Klein, Jeff Brauer, Mike Young and others here given the abuse they take?

« **Reply #30 on:** July 23, 2006, 06:35:36 PM »

Mike Jones - your comments are right on! So much of it has to do with the weather. Hoylake could have played impossibly difficult if the wind was up, which it was not. I think Tiger won because he used his head the most and hit smart iron shots when a wood obviously wasn't needed. Great point on Jack Nicklaus as well.

The course is absolutely worthy and the RLGC and R & A should both be commended for hosting a great championship. Tiger joins an elite group of golfers to win the Open at Hoylake - Bobby Jones, Walter Hagen, Harold Hilton andJ.H. Taylor. Great courses produce great champions and Hoylake has stood the test of time.

I also think the new routing worked out well. If the claret jug had come down to the 18th it could have been even more exciting.

Whitten just proves himself an uninformed fool with his article. He should have played the course before ripping it up and he would have seen the greatness.

Joseph

« **Reply #31 on:** July 23, 2006, 07:29:56 PM »

My point was not to critique Ron Whitten for transgressions, past transgressions or anything.. I just wondered aloud if he would regret what he wrote post the display that Hoylake put up.. That was all...

« **Reply #32 on:** July 23, 2006, 08:37:19 PM »

My two cents - even though he writes for a rival mag of mine, Ron is a gentleman and a scholar and a man of integrity with a truie golfer's soul. Can'[t we just agree to disagree with his theories and not engage in ad hominem attacks.

Ron also has the courage to design himself and face the maelstrom that could ensue. Yes, some people disdagree with him, but his opinion is a learned one. He made his argument and he sticks to it and I respect him for that.

Hoylake was played this week in utterly benign conditions...in October she'll be awake and she'll be roaring...who is it that has that tagline about "Hoylake probes like a dentist for the soft spot then reaches for the drill"...well not this week.

With cold and wind and rough - ho boy!

« **Reply #33 on:** July 23, 2006, 09:09:40 PM »

A lot of those guys were hitting driver. The only guy who wasn't (Tiger) took it out of his own hands. His strategy was perfect - keep the tee shots short of the fairway bunkers and hit the irons precisely. Has there ever been a greater display of precision golf, at least since the 2000 Open when Tiger hit NO bunkers in 72 holes?

The guy is miles ahead of the competition, in strategy and tactics, particularly in ball striking under pressure. Nobody since Nicklaus has been close.

« **Reply #34 on:** July 23, 2006, 09:21:11 PM »

I enjoyed Ron Whitten's article and the discourse here over it.

Frankly, I think it made for a better British Open and Tiger was brilliant in his stragety.

« **Reply #35 on:** July 23, 2006, 10:01:03 PM »

Wayne K: Your prescription for the course is EXACTLY what half the Tour is complaining about ... courses set up so that the long hitters can carry the hazards and the shorter hitters can't. That would be a freaking disaster.

I think Hoylake had the right balance. The hazards were at all kinds of different lengths, but they didn't take away the possibility of playing short if you wanted to. However, Tiger's strategy did show what happens if you are doing a restoration and you move all of the "too short" bunkers further downrange for the big boys ... if the course isn't long enough to make them hit driver, some won't. Nevertheless, I don't think anyone else in this week's field would have finished within ten shots, playing their approaches from where Tiger did.

« **Reply #36 on:** July 23, 2006, 10:08:02 PM »

Tom,

I agree. Anyone else in the field employing Tiger's strategy off the tee might have been fortunate to make the cut!

Which proves... ?

« **Reply #37 on:** July 23, 2006, 10:22:44 PM »

Jaka B, Tommy Naccarato, et. al.,

Ron Whitten and Brad Klein are public figures.

They write about golf and golf courses and in doing so may hold opinions that differ from others, that's why magazines and papers have a"letters to the editor" section.

Tommy Naccarato,

I will be forever puzzled by Ron's reviews of Jasna Polana and Hidden Creek.

Calling Jasna Polana a modern day Winged Foot seems wild, if not reckless, when it comes to architectural assessment.

If one had opinions that could be reasonably supported, it would seem difficult to drive that person away from this site.

At one time or another, everyone's opinions come under fire.
You and I have had some contentious debates, as have TEPaul and I, but, we continue to participate, discussing and debating the issues.

Who wouldn't want to see more from Brad and Ron ?
Their participation enhances GCA.com.

« **Reply #38 on:** July 24, 2006, 01:34:39 AM »

For a course that was referred to as 'Royal O.B.', how many players actually went out of bounds during the tournament ?
I didn't see many.

« **Reply #39 on:** July 24, 2006, 03:28:30 AM »

Quote from: Robert Thompson on July 23, 2006, 02:19:08 PM

There was little risk taking all week, and while I agree that Tiger's play and strategy was exceptional, you have to wonder what happened to hitting every club in the bag.... this wasn't a course that required that. Bring back Muirfield or a British Open course that actually requires a broad variety of shots that don't include 40 2-irons.

As opposed to 40 drivers?

I'd like to see a breakdown of all of Tiger's 2nd shots into the greens at Hoylake. My impression is that he hit a far wider variety of shots this year than he does on just about any other course.

Last year at TOC, e.g., he could drive four par 4's. He hit at least one of the par 5's with around 6 or 7 iron. The feared 17 took another short iron.

Where does Tiger hit more clubs than he did at Hoylake?

« **Reply #40 on:** July 24, 2006, 06:47:17 AM »

>Where does Tiger hit more clubs than he did at Hoylake?

and that variety creates interest, proves he his the greatest shot-maker of his generation and show how versatile Hoylake is.

« **Reply #41 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:14:19 AM »

Quote from: Andrew Summerell on July 24, 2006, 01:34:39 AM

For a course that was referred to as 'Royal O.B.', how many players actually went out of bounds during the tournament ?
I didn't see many.

You are correct. I saw Daly and maybe only one more...

Now what's the over under on OB at the Buda Cup?

« **Reply #42 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:25:42 AM »

Quote from: Jay Flemma on July 24, 2006, 08:14:19 AM

Quote from: Andrew Summerell on July 24, 2006, 01:34:39 AM
For a course that was referred to as 'Royal O.B.', how many players actually went out of bounds during the tournament ?
I didn't see many.

You are correct. I saw Daly and maybe only one more...

Now what's the over under on OB at the Buda Cup?

Adam Scott yesterday at 18.

« **Reply #43 on:** July 24, 2006, 08:56:29 AM »

Did Hensby also hit OB on the 3rd on Thursday. He had a triple and it was either OB or Lost. Not certain which.

If someone has access to the stats try comparing Tiger's fairways hit percentage in this tournament to his percenage the last two or so years. That's why he ditched his driver. He then had more faith in his mid-long irons than his wedges.

Maybe this is paying respect to the teeth the course has. If he missed he wanted to miss in the right places and this was more easily achieved by a superbly controlled iron game than gambling on wedges from the rough.

« **Reply #44 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:13:19 AM »

Matt Cohn/Robert Thompson - when next you are in the UK, I will happily stand you to a round at Hoylake. Afterwards, we can discuss further your claims that "Hoylake doesn't test every club in the bag."

To give you an idea of how club golfers find the course: in the autumn medal last year, around 70 golfers (overwhelmingly single figure handicaps, with at least half of those 6 and under) played the longer 6,900 course (vs 7,200 for the Open). Not a single person broke 80. Yes, the weather was rough, but there were a lot of pretty good golfers there, all of them used to tough weather on a links course.

In the equivalent Spring meeting this year, I think the winning score over the same course was 77.

« **Reply #45 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:45:33 AM »

I have a couple of takes. First, right or wrong, my definition of internal OB is different from Hoylake's. Internal OB, to me, is the fairway being lined with stakes and the ball able to run through the stakes or line out of bounds. This was not the case at Hoylake, there was a 'buffer' hill there and I thought it was fine and actually added to the course. 3 was an awesome hole and I thought 18 was pretty good as well. I enjoyed this Open as much as any going back to Muirfield and Birkdale in 98. The wind was a joke and any course would be defenseless in those conditions. 4-5 65's is holding up pretty well in my book, considering. Par 72 and no wind is just asking for an 18 under winner. It has to happen. Tiger putted well and played 63 perfect holes, the course was marvelous!!

« **Reply #46 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:21:51 AM »

John K:

I have said it a enough times previously -- when someone holds the chief architectural chair at any key golf publication that can clearly influence what is happening -- then I don't believe that same person can be an active player in the design business.

You can't be an umpire and a baseball player at the same time.

This silly idea that disclosure absolves the inherent conflict is simply rubbish. The mere public disclosure doesn't mean that the person holding such a position won't pull punches as needed in order to further their own design interests.

I have enjoyed what Ron has written in the past but the broader issue is how Digest handles the position. Frankly, I find it reprehensible that Erin Hills will not be rated by Digest because of Whitten's involvement. Once you push the stone off the cliff the resulting momentum can cause a boulder like effect at the botton of the hill.

« **Reply #47 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:35:04 AM »

Quote from: Matt_Ward on July 24, 2006, 10:21:51 AM

John K:

I have said it a enough times previously -- when someone holds the chief architectural chair at any key golf publication that can clearly influence what is happening -- then I don't believe that same person can be an active player in the design business.

You can't be an umpire and a baseball player at the same time.

This silly idea that disclosure absolves the inherent conflict is simply rubbish. The mere public disclosure doesn't mean that the person holding such a position won't pull punches as needed in order to further their own design interests.

I have enjoyed what Ron has written in the past but the broader issue is how Digest handles the position. Frankly, I find it reprehensible that Erin Hills will not be rated by Digest because of Whitten's involvement. Once you push the stone off the cliff the resulting momentum can cause a boulder like effect at the botton of the hill.

Matt,

I understand your position on Whitten...I simply want to know why you give Brad a pass for making money by writing books about clubs on his lists.

note: I have said above that I think it is great Brad and Ron have opportunities beyond baby sitting their minions..

« **Reply #48 on:** July 24, 2006, 10:55:23 AM »

Quote from: Jay Flemma on July 24, 2006, 08:14:19 AM

Quote from: Andrew Summerell on July 24, 2006, 01:34:39 AM
For a course that was referred to as 'Royal O.B.', how many players actually went out of bounds during the tournament ?
I didn't see many.

You are correct. I saw Daly and maybe only one more...

Now what's the over under on OB at the Buda Cup?

Jay

If we play the old routing (#3 becomes #1) and have a decent bevy the night before and have all of us standing on the tee and we enforce the "driver only" rule, the over-under for 12 drives (we're playing foursomes on day one, I think) will be 4.28571.

« **Reply #49 on:** July 24, 2006, 09:56:48 PM »

Quote from: Matt_Cohn on July 23, 2006, 01:56:16 PM

Ron Whitten might, say, "The winner hit his driver once in 72 holes, and even that one wasn't necessary. And he still shot 18 under par. If that doesn't meet the criteria for being "outdated" for modern majors, then what does?"

Not agreeing or disagreeing, just presenting the other side of the case. It's a very simple and reasonable argument to claim that Hoylake does not fully test the modern game. You may or may not agree, but it's a very reasonable argument to make.

And the reasonable counterargument would be that the conditions were about as conducive to scoring as could possibly be imagined. Extremely dry summer, so the rough was as benign as possible. Then a bunch of rain dumped on the course the night before the Open to soften it up nicely so it was firm but not scary fast. Then the wind failed to blow for four straight days, and it was warm which adds a bit of distance to everyone's shots.

The question I still have after this is: Will Tiger ever have a chance in an Open that plays in tough weather? He's great at dominating when the weather's fine, but when things turn nasty he's way down the list.

News:

Geoffrey Childs

John Kavanaugh

Geoffrey Childs

John Kavanaugh

Geoffrey Childs

John Sabino

Kevin Edwards

Jay Flemma

Bill_McBride

cary lichtenstein

Tom_Doak

Jeff_Mingay

Patrick_Mucci

Andrew Summerell

Jim Nugent

Paul Richards

Jay Flemma

Mark Pearce

Sean Walsh

Philip Gawith

Glenn Spencer

Matt_Ward

John Kavanaugh

ForkaB

Doug Siebert