What damage has been done to the cause?

[Jeff_Mingay]

tlavin,

Why does the USGA "take a chance" and do something about the golf ball while they're at it?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Perhaps, this year's Open will cause the USGA to focus on the need for a competition ball.

I also wonder how Shinnecock played on windy summer weeks before they had irrigation systems ?

[Willie_Dow]

Options!

Give the player an opportunity to seek out a way to play a hole set up by Shinny's design.
Wide fairways = different approach angles.
Greens = pin placements from different angles, but his choice.
Tee box = what does the green accept?

Result = fun!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Willie Dow,

I'm going to disagree with you on this one.

Wide fairways wouldn't have given you the options that you seek.

The rough was benign, and these guys were almost driving many of the greens.

In this years Open they were hitting Sand Wedges into greens that they hit 5 irons into in 1995 and 3 irons into in 1986.
When I first played # 10, about 40 years ago, many players would lay up to the plateau and then hit from a level lie to the green, no easy task.  But, when players are hitting into the green from 50 yards, it's a just a different world.

I also remember asking the caddy on # 18 if I could get there with a 2-iron.  He replied, "well, you can try", which iritated me, resulting in my hitting one of the best 2-irons of my life to about 10 feet.  Last week they were cutting the dogleg and hitting short irons and sand wedges into that green.

The ball and equipment has obsoleted the INTENDED ARCHITECTURE, and a competiton ball needs to be given serious consideration, otherwise, it will only get worse.

They were hitting woods out of the rough into the par 5's.

A competition ball is what is needed.

[tlavin]

This is like flogging a dead horse. We heard all week about the possibility of strong winds at Shinnecock, then Meeks is surprised when it came and dried out the course. I am sure he is a perfectly wonderful human being, kind to his wife and children, gives to charity, that he has balls of steel etc. Quite frankly, I would appreciate him more if instead of using the steel part of his anatomy he used his head.

Bob,

Way to turn a phrase!  I know what you're saying, but I guess my last defense of the man here is that they are making decisions on a razor-thin margin and he did his best.  This time around, it seems that rather than identifying the best player, they identified the luckiest player or the player with the fewest horrible breaks.

[tlavin]

tlavin,

Why does the USGA "take a chance" and do something about the golf ball while they're at it?

Jeff,

I would love to see the USGA do something with the ball.  Speaking as a selfish hacker, I want them to restrict, restrain and inhibit the touring pros and let the rest of us take advantage of technology.  I love the way I can hit my 983 driver and my new hogan apex irons.  The Pro Vx really flies for me.  When I kill it, it goes about 275.  Problem is, when Skip Kendall kills it, it goes about 380, and it is no fun to watch driver/wedge and see if they make the putt.  Tournament golf has been emasculated because the players all look like "He-men" on the tee.

[Matt_Ward]

Mark R:

I don't see any linkage between Shinnecock and what Carnoustie was like. Carnoustie was inane from the get-go -- it was major wind and drying like conditions over the weekend that dealt Shinnecock a tough blow.

For those who can't understand links golf these are the same folks who always want a guaranteed result. Simply put -- these folks don't get it and likely will never get it.

The bounce of the ball is not 100% guaranteed and those who opt for such a high percentage in order to be convinced of the game's fairness are really sniffing some major league glue.

[Lou_Duran]

Tom Doak,

I have said the same thing on this site several times.  A number of the features found in the "Classics" that we hold in reverence would get the aforementioned architects ridiculed to no end if they tried them.  One of my favorite holes at Long Cove is the very short par 4 DLL in the front side (maybe 5 or 6?) with water on the left, and the green complex blind from the safe right side.  A Golf Digest rater friend of mine thinks it is the worst hole in the course, yet he holds similarly designed holes on old courses fresh and interesting.  Perhaps Brad Klein and Golfweek have the right idea by evaluating courses in separate lists based on when they were built.

For the most part, it seems like many of the classic courses defend par with more "tricky" (or interesting) green complexes, whereas the modern architect has to take into consideration the great distances that the ball is being hit, its dispersion, the more stringent regulatory and legal climate, the ultra-short modern grasses, and wider consumer expectations.  Greens for the most part are bigger, and if they were more MacKenzian or Maxwellian in style, the courses might become unplayable.  Fazio's Dallas National has fairly severe grees for a large, modern course and the pros as well as some of the members hold that against what is  considered to be a great layout.   Baxter's Black Mesa and your own Rawls Course are open to similar criticism.

BTW, re: architects  being conservative, what happened to you?  You didn't grow up in the 60s.  What was the seminal moment or event that caused you to turn your nose up at convention?