[JDoyle]

Clearly the USGA is willing to do anything to protect par during the men's US Open.  This really seems to be the crux of the problem and the reason for the nearly killing of the course conditions this weekend.  They are interested in having the great classic courses host the Open (ala Shinnecock, Olympic, Bethpage, Pinehurst, etc.) to use their collective histories for marketing purposes, yet they will not allow these course to stand on their own and play as intended.

And WHY - IMHO, it's because of their need to protect par and to make sure no one reaches the conclusion that the equipment has gotten away from them and that they need to introduce a tournament ball.

But I am a complete outsider - a weekend golfer who has no real insight into the philosophy and politics of the USGA and their obsession with protecting par.  I am interested to hear from anyone who has some experience in how this group thinks.

What will come first - the USGA moving the Open to modern courses over 7400 yards and leaving the classic courses behind OR a tournament ball?

[Bob_Huntley]

Now you can see why LACC want no part of the tournament.

[johnk]

What will come first?   The US Open goes to Torrey Pines at 7600yds in 2008...

Actually, the argument for a competition ball doesn't work for me, since length simply won't protect par.  Say the ball took 20% off the distance that the pros drove it.  Would that change the scoring much.  Not of itself...

If they did have a competition ball and they continue to push courses to the edge of playable, that might inflate the scores by 3-4 strokes, I think...

But my point is that if they want to protect par (and I agree that that is the goal), then pushing the course to the edge of playability is the one way to do it...

I don't think it's a good practice, but I think that's how Fay and Meeks look at it.

[David_Tepper]

Jonathan-

You have correctly identified the problem (the USGA trying to "protect par"), but have proposed only one solution (the tournament ball).

There is one far more obvious and simple solution - JUST ACCEPT THAT PLAYERS ARE SHOOTING LOWER SCORES! I do not understand why this notion of "protecting par" is sacrosanct.

If the US Open was won with a score of 6 or 8 under par and 5 or 6 (or 10 or 12!) other players were under par for the tournament, how is that a negative for the game, the host course or the USGA?  Isn't that a better outcome than having 1/4 of the field shoot 80+ on the final day of the tournament?

Yes, players are hitting it further due to improved equipment and improved training methods. Athletes are improving their performance in ALL sports for the same reasons. Pole vaulting transitioned from bamboo to steel to fiberglass poles without  
the sport coming to an end. Track surfaces have improved for runners and helped lower times. The same for swimming. Just about every sport has had to deal with this situation and has chosen to accept the fact that performances have, for variety of reasons, improved over time. I do not understand why the USGA does not accept that reality.

DT  
 

[JDoyle]

David,

Very well said and I agree.  In fact, the reason for my post was to try and explore WHY the USGA feels the need to do ANYTHING to protect par - including tricking-up one of the best courses in the country.  At a minimum the USGA was misleading on the issue of rolling the 7th green on Sunday morning and at worst they were just flat-out lying about it.

WHY?

Why put the organization between the conditioning limits of a great American golf course and this life & death struggle to keep the winning score at par?  What is gained by this tight rope walk?

[David_Tepper]

Jonathan-

I could go into a riff about the socio-political background of the powers that be at the USGA, but I won't. Let's just say that among USGA circles, I imagine tradition is highly valued and notions of progress and change are not.

It would be interesting to know whether there is any concern at the USGA of not "embarassing" the host club and its members by seeing an abundance of low scores during an Open. Clearly pride and ego play a big role in golf.

What I find remarkable is that Colonial and Weschester (two VERY traditional courses) have been stops on the PGA Tour for years. To the best of my knowledge, neither course has been radically altered and neither course is especially "tricked up" when the Tour comes to town. Yet both courses tend to produce quality winners and are highly regarded by the players. Some years the scores are lower than others, but you never seem to hear about those two courses being rendered obsolete by the new golf equipment.

DT    

[JohnV]

Are any of you guys who want to accept that the players are shooting lower scores also believers in rolling back the ball?  Just wondering.

[David_Tepper]

John VB-

20-30 years ago I was very active in the game of squash (as  a player, functionary and merchant) when the characteristics of the ball and, therefore, the game changed. I have some perspective in these matters.

I do not have a problem, in theory at least, with the concept of a tournament ball. As a practical matter, I doubt it will ever come to pass. I cannot ever imagine it being accepted and implemented on the PGA Tour.

Who would decide the maximum distance to ball could carry? What would that distance be?  How would it be determined? Would it put shorter hitters at an even bigger disadvantage than they are now? If players started hitting this new ball further and further over time, would the ball then be throttled back again? These are just some of the questions liable to come out of that Pandora's Box.

I would remind everyone that the USGA has had very specific regulations regarding the characteristics of approved golf balls in place for many years. Obviously, improved technology has allowed those regulations to be massaged to great advantage.

I simply cannot see the USGA granting a monopoly to one manufacturer to produce a tournament ball.

DT


   

[Philip Gawith]

david - surely the fact that athletes in all sports are improving their performance misses the point. it is exciting to see someone run the 100 yards faster and faster, or jump higher or further. by contrast, golf becomes every more dull as pro's hit the ball further and further. i would like to see distance cut back simply to avoid having to watch drive/wedge contests, not because i am a misconceived traditionalist or against progress. it is just that "progress" in the case of golf, at least as played by professionals, is coming with some very high costs attached!

(incidentally, there are many sports whose FUNDAMENTAL nature has not changed dramatically by technological developments or athletes becoming fitter - witness cricket, rugby, soccer - all much the same as they were 20 years ago. maybe the same goes for baseball, basketball etc?).

as for the competition ball - why would it need to be the monopoly of one manufacturer? and it would not need to be the preserve of professionals only. it is quite easy to see how it might become a badge of honour among cognoscenti that they went round dornoch in x strokes playing the competition ball. and, indeed, you could see members clubs introducing competitions played with the championship ball, just as, for example, some clubs will have a competition day when members are invited to play off the championship tees (eg hoylake has such a day in september)

[TEPaul]

Jonathan;

I think your first post pretty much identifies the way things have become. The USGA is incredibly clever in the things they've come up with to manage and micro-manage a course to create a desired scoring effect. It's too bad they do it but it frankly amazes me how good they are at actually getting these incredibly good players who're out there grinding their balls off to come in score-wise right around where they want them to.

However, I think ultimately they're right on a real razor's edge here, and probably fortunately their bag of tricks is just about empty! If they continue to live on this razors' edge in set-up, one of these years they might take an entire course right over the cliff and the result in some round of the US Open someday is going to be a complete and utter catastrophy!

[A_Clay_Man]

Tp- Grass is tough stuff, isn't it?

This year, I witnessed to a course losing their water for three weeks. While there was a small reserve, it was held-on to, and from my rekoning the greens and tees were given a small dose, infrequently. It happenend in the early part of spring when the grass had already come out of dormancy.  It was stressed in spots that I was convinced were dead. Mostly areas of high ground where carts (still allowed off path) congested to get back to the path. Well, after getting their water back, within 10 days, the course  was healthier than before the stressing.

While I was not there, I am on record as saying the same will likely happen here.  Maybe one of the newer posters(that I've noticed) could report back after their club championship, which is in a few weeks. Pat and Wayne both said they will likely be there this week.

Is drowning the root zone the remedy?

[Patrick_Mucci]

IF YOU DON'T PROTECT PAR, WHAT'S THE CHALLENGE IN THE GAME ?[/COLOR]

[JDoyle]

Pat,

The challenge of the game does not exist because of a number.  If the USGA had managed the 7th and 10th greens better there still would have been plenty of challenging golf and competition on the weekend.  Who cares if the winning score was -7 or -8?  I agree with what Matt Ward said on another post.....the leaders were never going to double the 36 hole scores and finish at -12.  The wind was coming, the course was getting drier (without going over the edge) and the pins were more difficult on the weekend.

Pat - would you have a problem with a winning US Open score of -8?  If so - WHY?

Tom Paul,

I agree with your thoughts, however, do you have any insight as to why the USGA has this scoring issue?  

[Pete Buczkowski]

JD,

One thing I found interesting about the weekend is the lack of focus on length.  Even as a very interested spectator, I could only tell you the length of a few of the holes.  At Bethpage I could recite the length of nearly every hole.  I wonder if anybody else had a similar experience (or at least, those who don't know the course intimately).  Quite frankly, it seemed that length was nearly irrelevant.

Pete

[JohnV]

Jonathan, I would not have a problem with -7 or -8 winning the US Open, but I bet there are a number of people that currently scream about the course being too hard who would turn around and say it was either too easy or that the ball was out of control and must be scaled back to bring the scores back in line.  

When -10 won the US Women's Open in 1997 there were screams about the course being too easy.  Last year it was won at -1 on the same course and silence reigned.

[Ken Fry]

IF YOU DON'T PROTECT PAR, WHAT'S THE CHALLENGE IN THE GAME ?[/COLOR]

Beating every person in the field or your foursome.  If I'm not mistaken, the origins of the game had no par.  The winner scored the least on a hole or, once medal play was accpeted, total the strokes.  Par is irrelevant.  Whether Retief shot 2 under par or 20 over par, if he did it in the least amount of strokes, he wins.  Par means nothing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

KFry,

The last time I looked, the US Open was contested at Medal play, not match play.  If you want to go back to the origins of the game, players also teed off within one (1) club length of the hole they just completed.  Are you endorsing a return to those origins too ?

Par is the standard of performance.

Jonathan Doyle,

There was nothing wrong with the 10th green.

I have no problem if - 8 or + 8 wins the US Open.

But where is this right of entitlement coming from ?
This notion that if the PGA Tour pros don't make birdie or par that there must be something wrong with the golf course or its set-up ?

If the equipment is so much better, shouldn't the challenge be severe as well ?

[Jimmy Muratt]

It's too bad the USGA doesn't set up the courses for the Open similar to the way they set up the courses for the US Amateur.  They are less concerned with "Resistance to Scoring" for the Amateur since it is match play after the initial medal qualifying.  

The setup for the Amateur last year at Oakmont would have made a perfect US Open set-up.  It was plenty difficult yet not tricked up at all.  

It will be interesting to see how Winged Foot is prepared for this year's Amateur.  And then, to compare the Amateur set-up to how Winged Foot is set up for the 2006 Open.  

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat,

What was the correct way to play 10 on Sunday?  Should the players have laid farther back for a full LW or SW shot?  bumped it into the hill to kill the momentum and try to trickle it up (if so, how far up the hill)?  Putt it up?  Use a slope on the left or right?  The only shots I saw that did not go to the back were ones that took crazy bounces, and it seemed to be mostly luck which decided whether the ball hit from the back rolled down the hill.  

Jeff Goldman

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jimmy Muratt,

Don't you think that you have to factor in the vast differences in the characteristics of the golf courses ?

Shinnecock plays nothing like Winged Foot West or Oakmont under normal member play, so why attempt a comparison

[Jimmy Muratt]

Pat,

I definitely agree that the USGA needs to factor in the differences of the golf courses with regards to set-up.  I wasn't attempting a comparison between Shinnecock and Oakmont or Winged Foot, they are on vastly different properties and locations with respect to weather.   What I was trying to say is that the set-ups for the Amateur almost seem like the club sets up the course themselves and the USGA doesn't leave their "stamp" on them.  

Oakmont last year and Oakland Hills in 2002 both were very difficult set-ups, don't get me wrong.  But, the courses didn't play that much different from normal member play if playing the tips.  With the Open, the USGA obviously has a number in mind and they aim to protect par and will do whatever necessary to do so.  There are no such concerns in the Amateur.  

I hope some of my rambling makes sense!  My point is this:  I thought the set-up at last year's Amateur at Oakmont was terrific.  When the US Open returns there, I would like to see the set-up very similar.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Goldman,

What was the correct way to play 10 on Sunday?  Should the players have laid farther back for a full LW or SW shot?  bumped it into the hill to kill the momentum and try to trickle it up (if so, how far up the hill)?  Putt it up?  Use a slope on the left or right?  The only shots I saw that did not go to the back were ones that took crazy bounces, and it seemed to be mostly luck which decided whether the ball hit from the back rolled down the hill.

I can't tell you the definitive, absolute, correct way that each player should have played # 10, but I can tell you that most of those fellows didn't play it in optimum fashion.

With the fast and firm and funneling effect of the fairway, I would recommend driver/3-wood or whatever club gets you to the upslope in the fairway/rough.
From 50-70 yards from the green, on an upslope, my 4, 6 or 8 iron would have been the clubs of choice to run it up the hill.

But, many are unfamiliar with that shot, and their comfort zone dictates playing it aerially, which had disastrous results.

This wasn't your typical tour stop.
This golf course is different, and needs to be played differently.

You'd be surprised how good you can get at that run up shot with a little practice and some confidence.

One of the most telling examples was Mickelson's approach into # 14 on saturday.  He inadvertantly pulled his approach but enjoyed very satisfying results.

Hitting aerial shot after aerial shot, only to see those that came up short roll down the fronting hill, or those hit long roll down, off of the back of the green should have sent a signal to the collective brain of the contestants.

Experience is supposed to be a great teacher.
Instead, player after player hit the same aerial shots, and experienced the same disastrous results.  Your learning curve should tell you, it's time for a different strategy, but, they stuck with what they know best and paid the price.

I think most were ill prepared for that golf course, just like most are ill prepared in their approach to the 12th green at NGLA. [/color]

[Andy Hughes]

Pat, dear god, thank you for some sanity.  But even beyond your (correct) comments, is it really required that every single hole be birdie-able, or that their shots 'work' on every hole? Its not the end of the Open if some holes are too hard

[Jeff Goldman]

Pat,

Thanks for the response.  I did see a few try run-up shots, but if they made it to the top, even barely, it seemed that the ball would not stop until it reached the back.  The only balls I saw stop anywhere else on the green were those that took crazy bounces.  So I am not sure that there was any way to play the hole with skill rather than luck.  

I still thought it was fun to watch, and I would have liked Johnny and the gang to discuss the options and to see a few more try some.

Jeff

[George Pazin]

I really don't care what they shoot - 58 or 78 - I care how they shoot it. If someone pulls off a 60 by showing all the shots, I'd tip my hat to him.

Maybe I'm different in my view, but I really felt last weekend was much closer to a return to the roots of golf. Pros were forced to consider not simply lobbing the ball up close to the hole. I thought the same thing about the Open Championship and the US Amateur last year.

I think Pat is really onto something with his criticism of the decision making of the pros, but unfortunately I don't think we can really know for sure what would happen if they had tried a different approach.

Regarding #10, maybe you just have to accept that it's a par 4.5 or even a par 5 - play for bogey.

I really don't know what the answer is, but I know that I found this weekend's golf far more interesting than any other tournament this year, and the most interesting since The Open and the US Amateur last year. Masters included. The Masters was high drama of the first order, but the golf was still mostly an aerial assault of the blah-th order.

Maybe I'm just tired of watching that kind of golf. But I find it more interesting when a guy is standing in the fairway trying to figure out how the heck he's going to walk away with a par. Or standing in the rough trying to figure out how he's going to walk away with bogey. The most intelligent will likely play for par, try to minimize damaging holes and hope to occasionally drain an improbable putt for birdie - or maybe even eagle, if F&F allows him to drive it near a par 4 or reach a par 5 in 2.

That's why I'm so surprised that many are condemning this setup. I now find regular Tour golf to be rather boring. This was entertaining.

To those who complain that luck played too big a role, here or at Sandwich, I say, look at the leaderboard. Phil and Retief are clearly two of the top 10 golfers in the world. Ernie was in it till he lost interest after struggling early. Even Funk & Maggert are prototypical US Open golfers. Similarly, last year at Sandwich, sure, Curtis won, but Love, Singh, Woods & Bjorn were all there till the very end. That does not happen if luck is the deciding factor, unless all those guys in the top 10 are simply the consistently luckiest guys on the face of the earth.

If you want to luck at an event where luck prevailed (to a degree - all these guys are deserving, IMO), look at Carnoustie - Lawrie, Van de Velde and Leonard in the playoff (at a time when Leonard was not at the top of his game), Lawrie prevails. Or look at the Tour, or even the Euro Tour, most any week - the hot putter, which could be defined as lucky, wins week in and week out.

The source of the problem is in the mindset of most golfers and most commentators. The USGA might have been just a bit over the top this past weekend, but I truly believe it was really just a tiny bit, and I'll take that each and every weekend of the year.

BTW, this is somewhat of a change for yours truly. I formerly thought the USGA's obsession with protecting par at the US Open was silly, but now I kind of think it leads to more interesting golf.

Time to cue Tom P's saying....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()