The Accenture Match Play championship

[TEPaul]

I thought some of the matches in the Accenture Match play championship were fun to watch (in a back and forth match play context), particularly Lonard all weekend!

I watched a lot of it this weekend for things such as course management strategy and also to see what I could see about the strategic aspects of the architecture of that golf course.

Tiger Woods is, again, something else, and I continue to be impressed by his array or shot making, particularly shots where he really varies his trajectories and his spin! His overall tee shot selections are interesting too and obviously all revolved around the extremely heavy rough at La Costa.

For the course itself and its architectural stategies, I couldn't see that much except that little 378 yd hole that used a left bend and trees on the left to create real strategic fairway distance and placement considerations. And I though the diagonal creek across the fairway on #14 created some excellent overall strategic considerations throughout that hole.

But all in all it's good to see the pros play match play. And I also got a really comprehensive education into how Curtis Strange thinks about his own match play golf!

An interesting little sideline note for all us recreational match play golfers. Tiger Woods is anything but generous with concessions--and frankly I was very glad to see that--it brought some needed meaning back into the act of conceding putts in match play. (He must have seen a tape of Toms the day before when he missed a putt that had to be way "inside the leather".

[Willie_Dow]

There seemed to be an interesting variety of bunker layouts.

Some rather flat, some rather splashed with high faces of sand, which demanded a variety of explosion shots.

Too consistent, however!

[TEPaul]

Willie:

You've got a good point there about the green-end bunkering at La Costa being way too consistent and non-functional as a basic architectural strategic element.

Those greens were pretty quick but if you ask me the up and down stats from the greenside bunkers for those players may have been as good or even better than their two putt stats!!--and that doesn't say a lot about the strategic function of those greenside bunkers, does it?

Frankly, the rough around the greens was far more strategically meaningful than those green-end bunkers! Sort of an upside down "maintenance meld" that way on that course--don't you think?

[Willie_Dow]

Yes, Tom:

Maybe a horseshoe bunker design, with those grasses in the middle of the horseshoe would have lowered those percentages.

[Jim Sweeney]

TEPaul:

I was surprised by the low number of concessions- not just by TW, but by all the players. I do, however, find it difficult to guage the lengths of those second putts on the flat screen, and don't really trust the announcers' estimates. It seemed like a lot of first putts continued to run well after I thought they would stop. TW mentioned the green speeds in his post-win interview. Also, with so many holes cut within 4 paces of the edges, mmost of those 3-4 footers had considerable break. Not putts one would give in a match with 1mm bucks on the line!

I also wondered, cynically, if the lack of concessions was pre-arranged so the play didn't go too quickly, so as not to be left with too much dead air time.

BTW, does it really take 41/4 hours for two of the world's top players to play 17 holes?

[JohnV]

jesplusone,

They didn't actually tee off until 3:30 and were done by 7:10 so it was really just under 3:40 for 17 holes.  Still too slow, but a lot better than 4:15.  I can't remember if it was their group or the 3rd place match that went at 3:30.  If it was the 3rd place match, then they didn't go till 3:40.

[George Pazin]

I'm pretty sure it was the consolation match that went off at 3:30.

Some of those short non-concessions surprised me, too - but Toms did miss a couple of those coming in on Saturday.

Tiger's match against Scott on Saturday was one of the better ones all week. Kind of sad the way it ended, with Scott missing a short putt.

La Costa really seems like a mix of some interesting holes & some boring holes. The greens seemed really pretty flat. Not a lot of bending putts.

Since you guys are all a lot better than me & have played lots of competition golf, I have a question: how would a combination of fairly slow yet really firm greens test a player? Would the slowness allow too much dart throwing or would the firmness counteract it? Seems like those guys really struggle with speed on long putts that are slow.

[Carlos_Febres]

Here's my take on the whole thing.  I thought the coverage could have been a little better- I'm sure it was tough managing all that dead air, but they could have done more "review" of earlier matches to fill some spots.  The music montage moments were a little cheesy, and I think they're starting to sweat Tiger a little too much.  The most classic moment of the week was Curtis Strange's "bail it and smoke it" comment on the kikuyu rough.  Hilarious.  I think the ABC Sports must have crapped themselves when they heard it.  Sunday was pretty boring, mostly because 3 out of 4 players were off their games a bit.  And for the record, I hate watching Lonard because of that jerky swing of his.  I don't see him contending in majors because I don't think that twitchy swing will hold up- but we'll see.    

[A_Clay_Man]

I thought the re-configuration of the course was good idea. I was there once for the old mercedes and all I saw was the finishers. They all went in the same direction and seemed to have little character. This routing seemed refreshingly different.

Did anyone see Finchems interview? I thought his justification for not moving the venue seemed trite and just cause the rain made the course long didn't necc. make it more difficult.

[Craig Disher]

I don't recall a tournament where there was as much advantage in being in a greenside bunker rather than in the adjacent thick rough. The bunkers were perfect, consistent, and except for a few shots from awkward stances, proved useless as hazards. (Did anyone see a ball plug in the flashed faces?) The rough, in some cases just a yard or so off the green, was another story. A penalty for missing the green is fine, but don't set up such a wide variance in what's required for a recovery shot. I would like to have seen, especially on the longer holes, the area around the greens and greenside bunkers cut to fairway length. It's more interesting to see delicate chipping and pitching skills than someone flailing away at a ball they can barely see.

And if there was ever a case for not having match play on network tv, this was it. How could ABC expect to hold the interest of a large audience by showing 2 minutes of golf followed by 10 minutes of dead time? If Tiger hadn't been playing (what if there'd been a Toms/Scott final?) ABC's audience share would have dropped off the charts.

[TEPaul]

"It seemed like a lot of first putts continued to run well after I thought they would stop."

Jesplusone:

To me there is absolutely no better way to estimate the speed of greens than that very observation. I would say those greens were probably a legitimate 12 or maybe even higher.

That's the exact thing that one sees when playing Oakmont's greens in tournament conditions--the ball just keeps creeping and creeping and creeping long after you thought it would have stopped. Oakmont, by the way, runs their greens (and has for years) around 12 maybe 13 sometimes or even slightly higher!

I'm convinced what most people think is 12 on a green surface is generally no more than 10-10.5 at most!

[TEPaul]

"The most classic moment of the week was Curtis Strange's "bail it and smoke it" comment on the kikuyu rough.  Hilarious."

Carlos;

Who does Curtis think he is anyway?---McCord or Feherty?

That sure was an hilarious line! If Curtis had said anything remotely like that in the booth at ANGC he would have not only been banned from The Masters for the rest of his life but ANGC probably would have seen to it that he could never again enter the Great State of Georgia!

[Carlos_Febres]

TEPAUL:

I think Curtis was better a year or two ago than he is today.  I don't know what his deal is lately, but he's getting into Johnny Miller domain now.  I personally don't really like Johnny, but I think he's good for the non-avid viewer that doesn't know too much.  I also think Curtis needs to stop talking about the Ryder Cup, especially since he embarrassed himself so badly.  Let it go, dude- let it go.  

CDisher:

You'll never see a ball plug in those bunker faces for a few reasons:  The slope is too quick for a ball to hold on it.  There's a geotextile material under a very thin layer of sand that has some sort of tackiness to it that holds up the sand.  It takes a great deal of time and energy (and $$) to do it, but a lot of people like the aesthetics of it.  

[TEPaul]

Carlos:

Personally, I don't mind any of the announcers today. Matter of fact, the more contorversial they are the better I like them. I really like Johnny and I loved all the malapropisms of KennyV and his tortured English. I like Curtis too but he should tone down talking about himself and all his golf experiences all day long while announcing golf.

But that Peter Aliss!! Oh my God--is he the best that ever was? The things that man says off the cuff just kill me. Put a baby on the telivision screen anywhere in the vicinity of his mother's breast and he can create some imagery that definitely needs to go down in golf announcing history!

[mike_malone]

Two observations:
      First i was looking at the bunkers and thinking about the use of tongues(i imagine there is a better term).On most bunkers they were used.I thought that this created more options since there was more likelihood of getting an awkward stance.
      Secondly,i was amazed at the ebb and flow of anyone's golf game.At times Tiger was awesome(against Hoch),but he struggled after going up 5 on Toms...Did he get complacent?He missed  a couple of short putts,then he missed some iron shots when he only needed to put them on the green.It showed me the interconnectness of a golf game----putting goes,pressure to get irons closer----change swing---it's gone---commit suicide

[JohnV]

What makes these bunkers different from the ones at Royal Melbourne?  The ones there are also groomed so that a ball nevers plugs and rolls to the bottom, but the players seem to have a tougher time with them.  How are the bottoms of the bunkers maintained down-under to make them tougher than the ones at La Costa?  They both seem deep enough.

[Jeff Goldman]

I obviously can't judge the quality of the course from the television, but it seemed like the course had absolutely no interesting role in the matches, and looked almost completely boring from 3000 miles away.  I could think of a few dozen courses where we would all be thinking ahead to this or that hole and how the pros might play it. Think of PGA West and how they'd play 9, 10, 16 and a bunch of others, or Kapalua, or Blackwolf Run River - I remember seeing Ernie eagle 16 and a bunch of folks trying to drive the green on 9 and 14 during the old matchplay.  Here, who cared what hole they were on?  Almost all the same.  Since I mostly watch golf to see the courses, a big zero.  Put on teh 1999 U.S. open to see how they played the holes I did last week.

Jeff Goldman  

[Steve Lapper]

What makes these bunkers different from the ones at Royal Melbourne?  The ones there are also groomed so that a ball nevers plugs and rolls to the bottom, but the players seem to have a tougher time with them.  How are the bottoms of the bunkers maintained down-under to make them tougher than the ones at La Costa?  They both seem deep enough.

John,

  The bunkers at RM ar vastly different from the RLC kind. RM's are set with wider flat areas, more densely packed larger grain sand. The fact that ball doesn't plug often downunder is largely due to the sand grain size and denser packing. There is rarely a "fluff" lie to be found in them, unlike their counterparts in the States.

   The interesting fact about RM bunkers is that they need less maintaince and mostly just a quick raking. The offset is that they are likely to flood a bit with heavy rains, but ultimatly the drainage does an ample job of eventually returning them to form quickly.

Hope that helped..

[JohnV]

slapper,

Thanks.  Not having been able to make the trip down under yet I wasn't totally sure.  I figured that they must be less fluffy than the bunkers at tour events.  Plus, I'm sure they don't get hand raked directly towards the hole location every day like the ones on tour.

[Steve Lapper]

John,

   You are right, they don't rake them towards the green. In fact, they are always raked in a circular pattern. This is interesting because fresh lies sit in little rake furrows. This actually makes the shot a tad bit easier as the sand softens at the top (by raking) and remains firm below and the furrow acts as a small slope to help launch the ball....helps greenside, hurts in the fairways.


Steve

[Pete_Pittock]

My shots into bunkers plugged just as much down under as ijn the states. My thoughts on the chances of a ball plugging is the relative angle of trajectory vs. sand angle. The closer to 90 degrees, the better chance of plugging.

As to concessions, they were putting on speedy poa greens in relatively wet conditions.    

[TEPaul]

Slapper:

Thanks for the explanation of the sand conditions and sand size downunder. I've never been downunder but just looking at a few of those tournaments I sensed as much. Hard packed sand conditions (with little of the thin top layer of lighter fluffier sand) are definitely harder to play out of for most players. It does take a slightly different technique that does take experience and practice (not unlike the conditions in most US bunkers when the bunkers are more hard packed after rain--in those type conditions you see a lot of less than experienced players hitting some serious blade shots!). The other difference with those types of harder packed conditions, though, is a good player can often put a good deal more spin on his sand shots than from the normal types of US bunker lies with that lighter fluffier top layer.

[Steve Lapper]

Slapper:

Thanks for the explanation of the sand conditions and sand size downunder. I've never been downunder but just looking at a few of those tournaments I sensed as much. Hard packed sand conditions (with little of the thin top layer of lighter fluffier sand) are definitely harder to play out of for most players. It does take a slightly different technique that does take experience and practice (not unlike the conditions in most US bunkers when the bunkers are more hard packed after rain--in those type conditions you see a lot of less than experienced players hitting some serious blade shots!). The other difference with those types of harder packed conditions, though, is a good player can often put a good deal more spin on his sand shots than from the normal types of US bunker lies with that lighter fluffier top layer.

Tom,

  Your observations are correct (sorry Pat...I remain firmly in the Coutts camp...Swiss that is!). Spin is a wee easier to obtain under the equator. As you would no doubt appreciate, the Oz bunkers are often quite similar to many of the greenside bunkers at Pine Valley. 7 & 8' s are very similarly textured. US bunkers, especailly mine at Hamilton Farm are always fluffy....leaving me with way too many excuses for not having hit the perfect up & down.

[Mike Clayton]

Carlos

You may not like Lonards swing but he did finish in the top 20 in all 3 majors he played last year  11th at The US Open,14th at the British and 17th at ther PGA.
I understasnd it's different from contending and winning but not bad for a first year in two of them.

[TEPaul]

Mike Clayton:

Forget about Lonard's swing not being that pretty--to me it looked to be the type that's truly repeatable--until he starts to physically tire that is! (then it just looks like he get a bit quick and ahead of it and the ball starts going right--left, whatever).

But Lonard made the tournament for me. Everybody knows Woods, and Toms I know pretty well--Adam Scott is impressive but Lonard and what he did in those matches (those comebacks) is what match play excitement is all about, to me!

Plus, you don't even have to see Lonard swing--you can just look at the man and see (as Lanny used to say)--"He's got the guts!"