[George Pazin]

If all of golf's majors suited Seve's style he might have won 8-10 majors and be considered the equal of Hogan, which of course we know isn't true.

This remark shows clearly where you preference lies.

[Adam Clayman]

Phil The sentiment you espouse in this thread is insulting to every lifelong golfer who isn't playing for a living. The repetitive nature of narrow fairways is the epitome of boring golf. It's anfront to the philosphies of Bobby Jones and his Augusta nat'l.

One major aspect that hasn't been mentioned is the thrill of the challenge of risking well designed hazards, even short grass. The inner fortitude to go for it when everything is on the line doesn't need long rough.

 BTW, Phil was trying to hit his ball in the direction he hit it on the 72nd hole of the US Open. Vijay tried the same tact. Unless you actually believe he missed his line by that much?

Many people have said that some of "us" drink the kool aid. I think we have the definitive example of kool aid drinking influence by your post.

I agree....a non accurate hitter should be punished

Paul, Are you saying that innacuracy isn't penalty enough?

[Joe Fairey]

Personally, I would like to see Augustal National let the second cut grow to maybe three inches, and then see the results...number four at 240 yds...eleven, playing at 505 yds...what's next...I don't see a whole lot more usable real estate left, without changing the design intent of many holes...

[Phil Benedict]

Phil The sentiment you espouse in this thread is insulting to every lifelong golfer who isn't playing for a living. The repetitive nature of narrow fairways is the epitome of boring golf. It's anfront to the philosphies of Bobby Jones and his Augusta nat'l.

One major aspect that hasn't been mentioned is the thrill of the challenge of risking well designed hazards, even short grass. The inner fortitude to go for it when everything is on the line doesn't need long rough.

 BTW, Phil was trying to hit his ball in the direction he hit it on the 72nd hole of the US Open. Vijay tried the same tact. Unless you actually believe he missed his line by that much?

Many people have said that some of "us" drink the kool aid. I think we have the definitive example of kool aid drinking influence by your post.

I agree....a non accurate hitter should be punished

Paul, Are you saying that innacuracy isn't penalty enough?

This thread is about people who are playing for a living.  It's about how Seve matches up against Hogan at the championship level - how do you measure that?  I meant no insult to those of us who don't play for a living.

A lot of tennis fans don't like the French Open because it produces dull baseline play.  But what makes it worthy as a major is that it's testing something different than the other tennis majors.  

This is the first time I've heard that Phll was trying to hit his drive on that line on 18 at WFT.  If so, it was a bad decision.

[Kyle Harris]

I don't see a whole lot more usable real estate left, without changing the design intent of many holes...

Ooops, too late.

[Lloyd_Cole]

The real riddle is why Faldo, the most Hogan like player, won only the Masters and Open Championship, when his game was so suited the US Open and PGA set ups.

And Montgomery, arguably the best US Open player of his generation didn't win one (..yet). There is obviously more to the whole thing than the course layout, when it come to trying to win it...

[Lloyd_Cole]

To the actual issue of the  thread - Mark and Bob have both responded eloquently to the suggestion, and still the discussion seems to continue.

May I propose a simple argument.

Every fairway on every course offers an advantage for the resulting approach shot from placement on one side of the fairway, compared to the other. On occasion the very centre may be ideal, but this is 1/1000.
No player in history, not even Moe Norman has zero margin for error in their long game.
When fairways are so narrow and the rough adjecent is so punitive that the best players in the game feel obliged to play for the centres of the fairways, when they are are aware of the benefits from the fringes, because they know that their own margin for error is not good enough to risk thier ideal line, then tournament has failed, at least somewhat, in it's goal to set up the course to establish the best player of the day.

[Ed Tilley]

Of the 13 players that have won 6 majors or more, i.e. the best golfers of all time, their breakdown of major wins is as follows:

Open Championship   36 wins
Masters                  27 wins
US PGA                   25 wins
US Open                 24 wins

I'm not sure this would support the USGA's assertion that their set up identifies the 'best player', particularly given that the US Open is the only one of the 4 that these players would always have played (e.g. Ben Hogan only played one Open, the Masters came after the careers of Jones and Hagen). Interestingly, every one of theses 13 players has won the Open Championship and only Trevino (of the modern players) hasn't won the Masters.

if you looked at just the modern era (i.e. from Palmer onwards) the breakdown would be Masters 22, Open 21, US Open 11, US PGA 12.

IMO the two majors that traditionally place emphasis on creativity and shot making (The Open and Masters) over straight hitting have clearly had more success in identifying the best player.

Ed,

Hate to be a party pooper, but this is enormously flawed logic. It's self-referential.

You're defining the greatness of the player based on a breakdown of majors won. Then go on to say that the major with the most wins in that category is the one that best defines the player being great. There are several other explanations of less dubious logic that can also be true.

Hypotheticals that can reasonable be true: What if the setup of the Masters and Open Championship are such that they identify the same type of mediocre player? That mediocre player will of course win multiple times at those venues. Therefore, it could be argued that these setups are the LEAST likely to identify the greatest of players.

A major can only produce one winner, and by extension of your argument, only certain major identify great players. That being said, if the US Open is said to identify the great players and is enormously difficult to win, the instance rate of victory in a US Open would be less.

Just some food for thought.

Kyle,

I'm saying that the best players of the last 40-50 years were / are:

Jack Nicklaus, Gary Player, Arnold Palmer, Tom Watson, Lee Trevino, Nick Faldo, and Tiger Woods

Perhaps you could come up with a different list? The only other players I might also include would be Seve and Greg Norman but neither of them won the US Open.

I think just about everyone on this site would agree that the above list is pretty accurate when identifying the greatest players of recent years. My argument is simply that the set up of the courses for the Masters and the US Open allows these players to differentiate themselves from the 'lesser' players more regularly than the US Open type set up. This comes from the need to be creative and have a variety of shots that is not required at the US Open.

Over here, when one of the big soccer teams plays a lesser team and it's windy, wet, the pitch is bumpy there is a saying that the conditions are a 'great leveller', i.e. they make it more difficult for quality to rise to the top. I would argue that the US Open type set up is also a great leveller.

Ed,

[Mark_Fine]

"Width" is one of the architectural concepts that I spend the most time taking about (other than trees) at clubs.  For many people, it takes a long time to grasp the value and importance of width to interesting and compelling golf.  

I will say once again, that width for the sake of width is a waste of real estate.  Furthermore, every hole does not need to have fairways 50 or 60 yards wide.  Each must be looked at individually and determinations made from there.  

Going back to my earlier example about discussing the fairway lines on the 11th hole at Cherry Hills for the 2005 Women's Open; I remember that there was initial concern that if we expanded the width of the fairway beyond the left hillside bunker (as I wanted) that it would make the landing area too wide!  My response back was that if you didn't expand the landing area, it would not matter because no one would ever attempt that line of play.  Why try to carry the bunker on a long par five knowing that if you do, you will only end up in the long rough and have no chance to go for the green in two!  Add the width, create the temptation and the alternate risk/reward line of play, and make the hole exciting.  Fortunately they did (thanks in part to Mike and Tim, they both get it)    

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ed,

OT, but I once had a discussion with Trevino, and knowing where he ranked all time was important to him.  At one point, he said he favored having some kind of a system that would tell everyone if he was 7, 12, or whatever, all time.  

He didn't say it, but I imagine that comment gives a fairly good idea of his self ranking.  He acknowledged that the system would be endlessly debated and probably impossible.

[JESII]

 BTW, Phil was trying to hit his ball in the direction he hit it on the 72nd hole of the US Open. Vijay tried the same tact. Unless you actually believe he missed his line by that much?

Adam,

I trust you forgot the string of emoticons after the above quoted passage? Even if Jim "Bones" Mackay (sp?) came on here and said he and Phil agreed that going that direction was their intention at the time I would not even almost believe it.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, the subject of width of fairway should only be a subject for each and every hole analyzed individually, and not some generality. Each hole should be carefully analyzed as to its inherent concept, options and strategies, and then its fairway size and width should be tailored accordingly. In this way instant variety is created on golf courses.

The interesting thing about fairway width is after WW2 not only did so many courses have their fairway widths shrunk down to a app 35 yard standard but before WW2 most all those courses had fairway widths of app 50-55 yards.

Any standard fairway width, be it 30 or 60 is just antithetical to architectural variety, in my opinion. Would any good golf architect think to create all greens of the same size?

[Matthew Hunt]

Why do people not design Double-Fairways?

Is it a libadility issue?

[Adam Clayman]

Matthew, If you mean shared by "double' than yes.

One of the aspects that makes Wild horse so interesting is not only the varying widths, but how Dan & Dave teases the golfer by hiding with hillocks avenues that have width and areas that don't. Only after repeated play does one know that the fairway either does or doesn't exist beyond the hill. The best example is the fifth hole. After getting comfy wth the width, the fifth narrows. Justifiably since it is a short hole, but more interesting is the way the slope of ground hides the rough line on the left. One naturally assumes there's fairway there, but there isn't. I have found hitting driver on this hole, is ill-advised.

Mark Fine, An excellent example of the risk reward I referred to as missing from thsi thread. Thanx. And Well Done.

Phil, Sully,- Similar to Shinny's open, these guys figured out where they could bomb and gauge with the least amount of resistance. The leftside of 18 was one of those spots at WF. These guys are good, right? VJ and Phil don't miss it by that much. Phil just got a bad break. He needs to get over it and I'm sure he will.

[Jim Nugent]

Ed, one reason more greats have won at ANGC is the field.  The Masters has a much smaller, limited field.  I think under 100 golfers play each year, and a number of them have no prayer of winning.  Only around 40 (plus ties) make the cut.  This alone makes it more likely that a "great" player will win:guys like Shaun Micheel and Rich Beem don't even tee it up.  Put another way, the Masters is easier to win, once you do qualify.   There is less competition.  

Your British Open stats are skewed as well, I feel.  First, they include six victories before 1915, by Harry Vardon.  3 of those came in the 1890's.  Leaving aside the question of whether results from that time should count, Vardon only played 3 U.S. Opens.  At most he played in one PGA, and I think none.  This throws off any comparisons between these championships.  

Other reasons we might need to lower your British Open numbers:  from the early 1930's till 1960 most of the world's best golfers did not play there.  I wonder if it should even be considered a major during that time.  If so, take off 3 more victories (Snead, Hogan and Player in 1959).  From 1960 until 1980 (and perhaps even later) the British Open field was still questionable.  Americans were still the best golfers overall, but few played: only the very best players made the trip.  Like at the Masters, this gave a big advantage to the great players who did take part.  

Bottom line, the nature of the field explains at least some of the differences.  The Masters has weaker, smaller fields than the U.S. Open and PGA.  The British Open had weaker fields for many years.  Giving a big advantage to the great players who did play.  That's my argument, anyway.  

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()