US Womens AM -- Why no comments here?

[MargaretC]

After a quick scan of the topics, I'm surprised that there is no reference to the Womens Am.  In terms of golf events, I realize that it isn't a BIG deal, but given the high caliber of golf enthusiasts that post here, I thought it would have gotten a few comments -- or did I not look close enough?  

My husband and I saw a few rounds while we were visiting friends.  We had never been to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club before and it is impressive -- much, much better than we had anticipated.  Plus there were some excellent young golfers.

[JohnV]

Margaret,

I was there as an official and it was a great event.  I continue to be impressed at the vast improvement in women's golf since I was officiating on the Futures Tour in 2000 and 2001.  It is amazing how fast these college kids and teenagers are getting better.

The course played great and while I'm biased, I think that Witch Hollow once again showed how it is a great course for championships.  Look at the four championships that have been played there.  All have been exciting, with 2 going extra holes (96 Am and 2003 Women's Open) and the other 2 coming to the final putt to be decided (97 Women's Open and this event.)  With 3 par 5s (1 is played as a 4 for the womens championships) and 3 par 3s on the back 9, there are lots of opportunities for turnarounds.  Both Amateurs had the eventual champion coming from 5 down to win.

The final two holes on Sunday were amazing.  Both players deserve full credit for coming through under the pressure.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The final few holes were fantastic and made for great TV.  I had stuff to do, but it was such a great duel that I couldn't leave the TV.  It is hard to believe that a 14 year old can hit the ball that far and so well.

[John Kirk]

I watched a crucial four hole stretch (15-18) of the first 18 holes in person.  Schallenberg birdied 15 to go 5 up, but Kim came back with birdies on 16, 17, and 18 to reduce the lead to 2 up.  I then had somewhere I needed to be, and watched the broadcast later.

The course was set up particularly easy the last day.  Many of the easy pins were saved for the last day, though front right on 18 is not an easy location.  Earlier in the week, some of the really tough pins were used, so it evened out.

I attended the tournament for a few hours here and there, and it was great fun.  Walking along without many ropes to herd us, we were free to roam the fairways and see the shots up close.  It reminded me of old photos of golf tournaments.  Very old school.

Pumpkin Ridge was a star this week.  Sure, the course is very gently sloped and would be a insufficient challenge for the pros.  But it's a great member's course, and an ideal test for the best women players.  It's hard to see from the TV how nice and firm the course was playing, and how the wind affects play.  The amateurs were treated to an ideal Oregon summer week, with high temperatures in the 70s and 80s, low humidity, and a variable 5-10 mph breeze from the north and west.  The wind swirls, and plays tricks with you on the tees, especially on the par threes.

For this year's club championship, the superintendent set up the course with dry fairways and fast greens, a rare treat for the members.  The final afternoon of the tournament the wind kicked up, and the course was so incredibly fun to play, especially given the importance of the day's activities.

I have to believe the USGA was extremely pleased with Pumpkin Ridge, again.  

[Bill_McBride]

Margaret, threads here usually tend to focus on GCA or are considered "OT."  Maybe that's why not much chatter!

John, if you enjoyed no ropes at the Women's Am, you would love to attend the Walker cup.  Same deal, no ropes, walk down the fairway, stand 10' from the player hitting the shot, stroll down the fairway, stand in front of the green watching the putts, head for the next tee.  It is a great golf viewing opportunity.  We are heading for Royal County Down for the 2007 Walker Cup and can't wait.

Pumpkin Ridge looked good.  I'm still not crazy about that bunkering scheme on #17, but it was interesting to see Schallenberg almost hit into the gunch left off 18 tee - about three yards right of where I hit my tee ball last summer!  That's disaster.

[Rick Shefchik]

Margaret:

I would usually watch the event, but for some reason this year it completely slipped past me. I had to read this thread to find out where it was played. I was relieved, at least, to find out it wasn't played on a course I really wanted to see.

I don't know which network had the coverage, but they did an awful job promoting it.

[Bill Shamleffer]

Margaret:

I would usually watch the event, but for some reason this year it completely slipped past me. I had to read this thread to find out where it was played. I was relieved, at least, to find out it wasn't played on a course I really wanted to see.

I don't know which network had the coverage, but they did an awful job promoting it.

Rick,

The Golf Channel carried the Women's Am for five straight nights from 7:00 pm to 9:00 pm.  I missed Saturday's telecast, but on Friday and Sunday they went over two hours of coverage to show the conclusion of each day's matches.

I though it was some of the best golf coverage on TV.  Because of the low cost and minimalist approach to showing this event on TV, it was much more enjoyable to my opinion.  No fancy graphics, no big overdone openings, just golf, a few pre-taped interviews with the contestants, and a couple feature pieces.  Also, because of the simple/low-cost approach, I think only having two announcers in conjunction with the on-course reporters makes for less of a show and instead emphasizes the golf.

My only (minor) criticism is that when the announcers said they could not recall a final as exciting as this one.  I hear this comment often during exciting golf tournaments and am always surprised at the short-term memory of golf announcers.  How could they have forgotten the very exciting Women's Am of 2001 won by Meredith Duncan at Flint Hills in Kansas.

[Steve Lang]

 

No comments.. I was also surprized by lack of group comments, especially since event is something M. Wie never did win, and never will have on her resume, but a younger lady golfer from Hawaii will!  

Like most courses on tv it looked good.. I'm sure its much more impressive in person, and while pins may have beenin easy positions for Sunday.. I don't think any pin is really easy when you're trying to win a tourney..let alone a USGA Championship..

p.s. same with International???  another golfer from Hawaii !

[George Pazin]

I think Michelle is playing on the European Tour soon.

Margaret, I think you're seeing the results of 2 things - 1) there was a lot of discussion of Pumpkin Ridge during the Women's Open a few years ago and 2) there's a lot of angst building up about the PGA & the Ryder Cup - we're conserving our energy!

Sometimes it just takes a nudge here and there.

[John Kirk]

A couple more comments from North Plains, OR:

Play moves along quickly at Pumpkin Ridge, a flattish course with short green to tee walks.  Qualifying rounds and match times were generally well under the USGA requirements.  The first 18 of the 36 hole final was played in 3:30.

Tiffany Joh, a fine young player from San Diego who finished first or second in the Women's Amateur Public Links earlier this year, played her rounds hugging a big box of cereal inbetween shots.  The match I saw, she was nibbling on Apple Cinnamon Cherrios.

Steve, I don't think "impressive" is a good description of the course.  The course has a nice flow to it; play moves along rapidly.  Compared to many championship courses, it's small and requires accuracy more than power.  Bad swings can result in double bogeys, and you need to make birdies there to post a good score.  There's very little quirkiness, what you see is what you get.  Simple and straightforward, it's a beautiful country course.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I too enjoyed watching the event this weekend. Oregon in the summe ris a great place to be. My congratulations to the crew at Pumpkin Ridge for having the course in great shape.

[Garland Bayley]

I wanted to attend, but last weekend was our club championship. The way I played I might as well have went to the Am. I follow the results on the USGA site and was hoping the hometown girl would do really well. Unfortunately, she lost in the second round. The championship match sounded much more interesting that what I did that day.  

[JohnV]

As John Kirk knows, I refereed Ms. Joh's first round match against Alice Kim.  She did hug that box of Cheerios all the way around, munching on them at times.  She was really a fun kid (19 years old) as was Alice Kim.  It was one of the more enjoyable matches I've refereed.

Joh won the WAPL this year, beating none other than Kimberly Kim 6 & 5 in the finals.

In the second round I had Sydnee Michaels and Alison Walshe who played a great match that went all the way to #18.

I love refereeing match play and am looking forward to heading to Forest Highlands next month for the US Mid-AM.  If any of you will be around, look me up.

[MargaretC]

To:  JohnV, Redanman, Wayne, John Kirk, Bill McBride, Rick Shefchik, Bill Shamleffer, Steve Lang, George Pazin, TigerB and GarlandB

Gentlemen, thanks for your comments!

JohnV - You saw way more of the event than I did, but I'm glad that you agree that it showcased excellent golf.  Were there any interesting rules situations?  It would be wonderful to catch the Mid-Am someday -- definitely no chance this year.  Why doesn't it get much coverage?

Redanman -- sorry, I missed your comments on another thread.

Bill McBride Margaret, threads here usually tend to focus on GCA or are considered "OT."  Maybe that's why not much chatter!  Thanks, I'll try to remember the "OT."

Rick Shefchik - I would usually watch the event, but for some reason this year it completely slipped past me. I had to read this thread to find out where it was played. I was relieved, at least, to find out it wasn't played on a course I really wanted to see.  IMHO, I think you are under estimating Pumpkin Ridge.  It may never host a US Open or PGA event, but don't let that fool you into thinking that it's a so-so golf course, because it is very well done.

John Kirk - Steve, I don't think "impressive" is a good description of the course.  The course has a nice flow to it; play moves along rapidly.  Compared to many championship courses, it's small and requires accuracy more than power.  Bad swings can result in double bogeys, and you need to make birdies there to post a good score.  There's very little quirkiness, what you see is what you get.  Simple and straightforward, it's a beautiful country course.  John, maybe "impressive" is too strong, but I think Pumpkin Ridge is way more than a beautiful country course.    
   

[John Kirk]

Thank you, Margaret.  As a member of the club, I don't feel a strong need to defend the course.  The course was cited as overrated by at least three GCA members in the recent Underrated/Overrated thread.  Both Pumpkin Ridge courses feature less severe contouring than most great American courses.  In addition, Ghost Creek features some unsightly containment mounding, plus a non-contiguous artificial creek, both of which detract from the natural aesthetic we GCAers covet.  The mounding serves a function though, as spectator areas for tournament play.  Ghost Creek has always been intended as the tournament course, and has hosted two Nike (now Nationwide) Tour Championships.

But the USGA keeps coming back to Witch Hollow, and the recent Women's Amateur tournament was a great success.  The private course may lack some of the quirk and contouring that many Golden Age courses possess, but give me a late afternoon starting time in mid-August, and there are very few places I'd rather be.

[JohnV]

Margaret,

There was one interesting rules situation.  I didn't see it, but as I understand it, a player on the 18th hole of her match with Ms. Schallenberg was one down.  She took her stance and was on an old divot.  When she backed away from the ball, the divot stuck to her shoe and came out of the hole.  She put it back and hit her shot.  She lost the hole for improving her lie.

By removing the old divot, she had worsened her lie which is no penalty.  By putting it back, she improved her lie and the penalty for this is loss of hole.  I know it seems harsh, but that is the way the rule is worded.  The thing I don't know is why the referee with the match didn't stop her from putting it back.  Perhaps she didn't see it until it was too late.

From what I understand, she was in a lot of trouble on the hole and probably wasn't going to win the hole which she would have needed to do to extend the match, but still kind of sad.

John, the USGA's Junior and Girl's Junior were predominantly played at Ghost Creek in 2000.  And lets not forget the GI Joe's/Thriftway Portland Invitational that I was the head of rules for during the mid-1990s.  What could be more important than that?

[Glenn Spencer]

The 'golf tournament gods' have blessed this place and it is as simple as that. The only thing this course has not done perfectly is bring home Nancy a winner. The only mark against it.

[Garland Bayley]

The 'golf tournament gods' have blessed this place and it is as simple as that. The only thing this course has none done perfectly is bring home Nancy a winner. The only mark against it.

Well then Glenn, there was that little "you shoved my daughter" incident.
 

[MargaretC]

John Kirk -

My husband "accused"   me of "equivocating" my initial impression of the Witch Hollow course and generously offered a definition of "impressive."    I'm not a golf course rater and I don't want to split hairs about what its ranking should or shouldn't be, but IMHO the layout and use of the land is excellent.  Watching a couple of rounds of golf there were beautiful walks -- natural -- didn't feel contrived as many courses do to me.  I have no problem visualizing that rounds of golf there would be very  enjoyable.  

[MargaretC]

JohnV
Your comment: By removing the old divot, she had worsened her lie which is no penalty.  By putting it back, she improved her lie and the penalty for this is loss of hole.  I know it seems harsh, but that is the way the rule is worded.  The thing I don't know is why the referee with the match didn't stop her from putting it back.  Perhaps she didn't see it until it was too late.

That is an interesting situation -- not sure if it would have occurred to me.  Thanks!  I just learned something!  

I generally don't pass judgement re: the rules of golf.  They are what they are and it's our responsibility to learn/know them and play according to them.  I like the attitude you project as a rules official.

My husband is typically easy going [a valuable trait with 6 kids].  He loves the game of golf and respects the rules.  A few years ago, he uncharacteristically blew-up in a conversation with a rules official during an event.  In brief, the official said that he was an "enforcer" not an "educator" and it wasn't his job to stop someone who appeared as if he may violate one of the rules of golf.  He muttered un-holy comments about that guy for days after that event.  He had no problem accepting the penalty because without thinking, he did violate a rule.  His problem was the guy's attitude.

[Bob_Huntley]

JohnV
My husband is typically easy going [a valuable trait with 6 kids].  He loves the game of golf and respects the rules.  A few years ago, he uncharacteristically blew-up in a conversation with a rules official during an event.  In brief, the official said that he was an "enforcer" not an "educator" and it wasn't his job to stop someone who appeared as if he may violate one of the rules of golf.  He muttered un-holy comments about that guy for days after that event.  He had no problem accepting the penalty because without thinking, he did violate a rule.  His problem was the guy's attitude.

Margaret,

Assume that a violation such as this occured on the eighteenth hole of a match that was all square. Would the official have not interfered in the outcome of the match? I know that many of us would remind an opponent to replace a moved ball marker, however a Smiley Quick would have told the official to shut up.


Bob

[Glenn Spencer]

The 'golf tournament gods' have blessed this place and it is as simple as that. The only thing this course has none done perfectly is bring home Nancy a winner. The only mark against it.

Well then Glenn, there was that little "you shoved my daughter" incident.
 

Yes, that is it for this place. btw, I love the 12th, 14th and 18th holes at this joint. At least I do from watching about 7 tournaments from there.

[MargaretC]

Bob Huntley:

Your comment: Margaret, Assume that a violation such as this occured on the eighteenth hole of a match that was all square. Would the official have not interfered in the outcome of the match? I know that many of us would remind an opponent to replace a moved ball marker, however a Smiley Quick would have told the official to shut up.

Your point is very well-taken.  I may have been a bit too brief in describing the situation that angered my husband.

I'm not a rules official and I have no idea what is permissable in such situations.  Further, I do not think it is the responsibility of a rules official to "educate" during an event they are officiating.

In my husband's situation (and I'm saying what my husband  said the official said) -- after the rules official advised my husband of the penalty assessed and why, the rules official additionally commented, that for a minute, he held his breath and thought my husband was going to correct himself -- said that he was beginning to feel bumed-out that he wouldn't be able to make the ruling.  THAT little "PS comment" is what sent my sweet husband into orbit -- the "I want to GET somebody violating a rule" attitude.  After the "postscript" comment, that rules official went into a diatribre re: "enforcer" not "educator" -- blah, blah, blah...

In THAT case, if the rules official had just kept his mouth shut after assessing my husband with the penalty and explaining it, I know my husband would not have blown-up.  Certainly, my husband would have been annoyed with himself for making the error, but he would not have gotten angry with the official for doing his job.  IMHO, the rules official in the situation with my husband was not too bright and a jerk!  Hopefully, he was just having a bad moment/day.

Maybe JohnV can advise what is acceptable for a rules official in the situation you described.  

As a player -- in a tournament or not, if I thought someone in my group were about to make a rules violation, I would speak up.  If, as a result of speaking up, I ultimately lost by strokes = to a penalty that may have been assessed -- so be it.  Honesty, courtesy, among other values are central to the game of golf and are among the reasons I love the game!

[Glenn Spencer]

Margaret,


Here is a perspective from an average tournament golfer that is not as easy going as your husband, without a doubt. I don't think that is an official's responsibility to catch me violating a rule, but if he happens to see me about to violate a rule, the ones that I have dealt with, all would have made me aware of my impending mistake. Your husband's official should have done so as well. No player would think any less of your husband for reacting the way he did. I know I would have.

Somewhat similar, on the 72nd hole of an amateur event that I was playing in, there were about 5 people watching us on the 18th tee, while I fired one out of bounds. I said I was playing a provisional to one of my good friends and opponents. When I got to the clubhouse after a round that left me about 13 shots behind the winner, I was told that I might be disqualified. I said, 'For what, that tee-shot on 18 didn't kill anybody?' Turns out that someone told the man in charge that I did not announce a provisional. My friend was asked and he said, I thought he did. Now, why didn't that person that tattled on me, say something when I was addressing the ball? IMO, if it was an official, they should have, if it was a spectactor, they should have, if they have enough gall to go to the official in charge afterward, they certainly have enough to say something to me, after I address my second tee-shot. It sure felt to me, like the trap was being set for me, I just didn't know who was setting it.

[JohnV]

Whether an official interferes or not depends on his status at the event.  There are three possible scenarios.

1) A referee assigned to a match or group in stroke play.  He must act on all violations he sees.  Also, according to Decision 34-2/3, the referee is under no obligation to prevent a violation,  he may do so and if he does he should do it uniformly for all players.

2) An official in a stroke play event.  Should act on anything he sees and try to help players avoid penalties, but again, he is not obliged to do so.

3) An official who is not a referee during match play should keep his mouth shut unless asked for a ruling or to settle a claim.  In match play without a referee, it is up to a player to watch his opponent and nobody else should interfere.

I can tell you that if I saw a player about to violate a rule in either situation 1 or 2, I would stop him before it was too late if possible.  The one place where that gets really scary is when a caddie is helping the player line up from behind and you think he might not get out of the way.  In that case, I usually keep quiet as they do know to get out of there and I don't want to disturb the player who is that close to hitting a shot.