Geoff Shakelford on Southern Hills

[Joe Hancock]

RJ,

What you surmise about a tournament course being babied right up until the tournament is how I see it as well. What I know of drying and toughening isn't what a high end club does by turning down the water three days prior to the tournament and then bragging about it.

They live in a different world than I do, and I am the one who has lost touch, best I can tell.

Joe

[John Chilver-Stainer]

The bunkers have probably succombed to that common bunker disease - “Greenkeeperitis”.

The disease creeps up on the bunker over the years and can render the most filigree scuptured edges into an oval blob.

[JESII]

I wonder if the shaved bank running straight into a pond will dumb down the risk reward decisions...

I do not know the course, so based on the picture posted early on this thread, how could a guy justify hitting any ball near that runoff with anything other than a wedge? Is that a wedge hole? Pelz did a piece on the golf channel that showed another hole with the same type of runoff going down the back into a pond and he seemed to imply it was a long hole...#2 maybe? Sounds like a fools gamble to me...6 to 4 or 5 to 3...

Am I off base on this?

Is there any chance of the ball stopping on these shaved slopes?

How did Maxwell plan these slopes?

[Chris_Clouser]

I'm on vacation this week but saw this thread and thought I would respond.

The bunkers as they are today are not how Maxwell constructed them and on some holes they have been moved over time.  

The hole pictured is 12 and is a long par four of around 460 yards.  But the distances they are hitting it today they might be hitting wedge or nine-iron into that green.  

JES, the hole you mentioned sounds like #2 as it would be a long par four and it would have a creek running behind the green.  The slopes have been a deeper grass at times and Maxwell originally laid them out that way.  Back then you just didn't have the funds to continually have shaved slopes so things like that and chipping run-offs didn't make it into too many designs.

Joe Hancock,

Southern Hills was the first bent grass course in Oklahoma from tee to green when Maxwell built it.  

It's funny that one column by Geoff Shackelford that gets posted on his own site gets more responses on here than the final nine holes of my hole-by-hole write-ups combined.    

[BCrosby]

I watched a piece last night on Golf Channel on the 2nd and the 12th.

I agree with JES II. The runoffs into water make it so that the risks overwhelm the rewards.

Effectively, those greens play as if tightly borderd by water.

The shaved edges seem to reduce strategy rather than increase it. They would dictate very conservative approach shots.

But I haven't seen SH, so maybe I'm missing something.

Bob

[John_Cullum]

I wonder if the shaved bank running straight into a pond will dumb down the risk reward decisions...

I do not know the course, so based on the picture posted early on this thread, how could a guy justify hitting any ball near that runoff with anything other than a wedge? Is that a wedge hole? Pelz did a piece on the golf channel that showed another hole with the same type of runoff going down the back into a pond and he seemed to imply it was a long hole...#2 maybe? Sounds like a fools gamble to me...6 to 4 or 5 to 3...

Am I off base on this?

Is there any chance of the ball stopping on these shaved slopes?

How did Maxwell plan these slopes?

Mickelson gave an explanation of the 12th on Golf Channell. He says the slope is not so severe that a ball hit with a right to left flight will roll into the creek, but if it hits left to right it will. Interestingly, for this reason, he says the right hole locations are the go to holes. The left side slopes toward the creek and the players can't get up and down if they short side left, but they can if they short side right

[JESII]

JC,

I'll try to put that logic into the computer while watching this weekend, but in the meantime...does that make a bit of sense?

Is he saying that with a right pin he would cut it (right-to-left) so if it under cuts it is on the slope but will not roll into the water? I am flummoxed by that rationale.

[John_Cullum]

Yes. That is what he says. According to Mick, the players can get up and down from the right if they miss a little bit; but if they miss the green left, they can't. I guess the key is wheteher he is correct about keeping the ball out of the creek if they go right.

[Cliff Hamm]

The PGA Championship has become by far the best set up course of the American majors, at least since Baltusrol and perhaps before.  The PGA seems to get it right by not setting up every course the same but allowing the architecture determine what they do with rough, etc.  They do not have this irrational belief that par must be protected at all cost.  The course set up therefore does not favor one particular type of player.  

The PGA has begun to produce 'greater' champions than the US Open (Mickleson and Woods the past two years) and with no doubt will do so again this year.  It is a testament to the set up. Unfortunately it has not raised the stature of the event but time will tell given the better courses now being used.

[Kalen Braley]

The PGA Championship has become by far the best set up course of the American majors, at least since Baltusrol and perhaps before.  The PGA seems to get it right by not setting up every course the same but allowing the architecture determine what they do with rough, etc.  They do not have this irrational belief that par must be protected at all cost.  The course set up therefore does not favor one particular type of player.  

The PGA has begun to produce 'greater' champions than the US Open (Mickleson and Woods the past two years) and with no doubt will do so again this year.  It is a testament to the set up. Unfortunately it has not raised the stature of the event but time will tell given the better courses now being used.

Cliff,

If you are going to make a statement like that you can't just conviently leave out Sean Micheel who won just a mere 4 years ago...

Unless you are going to call Vijay, PM, and Tiger winning over the last 3 years a "significant" trend....

BTW...Between 2000 and 2004, Tiger and Retief won twice each and Jim Furyk won the other time.  I guess thats a pretty shabby list of winners...  

[Cliff Hamm]

Kalen...you're point is well taken but I purposefully wrote that the PGA setup has been excellent since Baltusrol.  I honestly cannot remember the setup before Baltusrol.  I do believe that there is a trend of the PGA producing a 'greater' champion than the US Open due to the set up.  I have always loved the open but it seems to be more and more one dimensional.  Only time will tell if I am correct at my attempt to see the future, but I do believe the PGA is getting it right in their set up

[JSlonis]

Last night on the Golf Channel they had a segment with the pro's about which course setups they preferred, the US Open or the PGA.  Probably to no one's surprise, every player interviewed said they far preferred the PGA setups and some were quite critical of the USGA and the way they feel they need to "protect par".

I think the players interviewed were right on with their comments.  They felt that the setup that the PGA has presented allows them to play and showcase their games better.  It allows them an opportunity to try to recover, to use their skills of recovery and as Aaron Olberholser stated about the USGA/US Open, "NOT...play like a 10 HDCP and hack it out and wedge it on in hopes of making a par."

[George Pazin]

You know, I used to feel the same way.

Then I thought about the play I've seen in the US Open this decade and came to the conclusion that "every shot in the rough is hack it out" is largely a myth.

I also came to the conclusion that "protecting par" means the most interesting golf out there. The R&A might not need to do that with links courses in The Open, but to me, the US Open since 99 has been the most entertaining golf event out there.

It's not that I enjoy watching the pros struggle, it's simply that I think that is pretty much what is necessary these days to avoid the only strategic element being, "What's my yardage?"

[Matt_Ward]

Cliff, et al:

You are 1000% correct.

Kerry Haigh is the key point man for the PGA of America and his consistent efforts have allowed the skills of the players who are performing their best to shine through because the layouts that serve as host are not bastardized into being some sort of horror show.

George P:

I love the US Open -- but even with all the rightful plaudits for Oakmont -- me being among them -- the overall length of the rough for such events needs to be scaled accordingly. I salute what Mike Davis now does for the USGA but there are those who still see the SW pitch out as the appropriate sanction for wayward driving. The recovery shot is part and parcel of the game and when people simply hack it out -- as they did an overwhelming amount of the time at Oakmont -- then the event loses a bit of luster.

Candidly, the PGA gets it right fairly often time after time.

[tlavin]

Looks like Valderrama to me.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

So when the ball runs down that bank on #12 and trickles into the water, are you saying thats better than someone being penalized by having to hack it out of the rough?

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

The PGA is smart enough not to have 4 inch bermuda grass surround the holes as has happened in past national events there -- I was there for the '77 Open and saw firsthand the stupidity -- ditto the silliness of the '01 Open with the speed of the 9th and 18th greens respectively.

Let's talk about the hole in question shall we.

These are world class players and they will likely be hitting a short iron into the hole. If they can't handle a shot of that type and land it accordingly then they should get what happens.

End of story ...

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

I understand these are world class players.  But using this same logic, couldn't one also say they should have the ability/skills to keep the ball out of the rough?

What I'm really getting at here, is that so many here seem to get thier knickers in a wad with too much rough and the players being penalized by having to chip out.  Yet missing the green by a mere few inches could be the difference between a ball on the green and a ball in the water? Which is the worse or more arbitrary penalty?

Tom D alluded to this during the Open at Oakmont.  I can't remember which hole it was, but many were complaining that getting into a certain greenside bunker was too brutal, because the green sloped away from them on the recovery shot.  Yet if it had been a pond there, no one would have thought that a big deal.  Even though they are both hazards, at least from a bunker you have a chance to recover.

I view this issue in the same context as that.  At least when one goes in the rough they still have a chance.  Hit it in the water on 12 and you're looking at guranteed bogey, likely double bogey.

[Matt_Ward]

Kalen:

See if you keep with me on this.

When groups that set-up courses narrow fairways to the point of 20 yards or thereabouts you cause the world's players to favor a more defensive type of game plan -- especially from the tee.

I don't see that as entertainment. Maybe you do.

I'd like to see a bit more creativity with their shotmaking skills.

Try playing out of 2 inch bermuda and tell me what happens. Double the length -- as was done for the '77 and '01 US Opens and the net result is the sideways pitch. Geeze, I can't wait to pull up my chair and watch such e-x-c-i-t-i-n-g golf. I always love to watch hordes of people bending over and seeing if what they are looking for is the golf ball in question. Nothing like the Easter egg hunt moving to the golf course.

If you question the players -- do they prefer the set-ups from the USGA or PGA the answer is clear to me and others. The PGA -- especially through the actions of Kerry Haigh understand that golf needs to be entertaining and that having players hack out of hay is fine for farmers but not for serious golf since the recovery dimension is not permitted.

In regards to the comments / re: Oakmont. If a player short sides himself then the issue is with the player -- not the set-up. The only real issue with Oakmont -- and I was there to personally see it -- was that rough heights were truly too high in too many spots. There needs to be a penalty for wayward driving and approach play -- but not the hacksaw variety.

The 12th at SH is no different than the 11th at Augusta. The issue is that the latter has seen fit to add an inane array of preposterous pine / fir trees down the right side of the hole.

The water at #12 at SH is fair game in my book.

[Tom Yost]

I seriously doubt that the use of fans is because of green site selection and more a response of a super scared for his job and looking for an above ground insurance policy.

Then why do you cringe when you see them?

Oh wait...I believe the term you used was "puke".

Oh, _those_ fans.  

I thought he was referring to the shirttail out, cargo short, flip-flop wearing tournament patrons.
 


Tom

[Cliff Hamm]

Matt,

So when the ball runs down that bank on #12 and trickles into the water, are you saying thats better than someone being penalized by having to hack it out of the rough?

Kalen, my answer would be absolutely yes.  The architect intended the water to be a hazard.  When fairways are so narrow with impossible rough I don't believe that was part of the architecture.

What has happened to the US Open is the architecture is minimized.  I am convinced you could take any course in the country, stretch it to 7400 yards, make fairways look like bowling alleys with 4-6" rough, and stemp the greens at 13 or so and the course would defend par as long as the greens had some break.  Every US Open is beginning to look the same to me where the course it is played on is irrelevant.

[Mike_Cirba]

The reason it's better to have reasonable length, but inconsistent roughs off the fairways, and short grass around the greens is very simple.

All of a sudden, the player is forced to think about what might happen to the ball after it hits the ground.

If a player knows that missing just right of the 12th green either gets him a good lie in the bunker or a tougher one in high grass, but in both cases, a ball that basically stops dead upon landing, then a LOT of variables and uncertainty are instantly removed.

[George Pazin]

I salute what Mike Davis now does for the USGA but there are those who still see the SW pitch out as the appropriate sanction for wayward driving. The recovery shot is part and parcel of the game and when people simply hack it out -- as they did an overwhelming amount of the time at Oakmont -- then the event loses a bit of luster.

Candidly, the PGA gets it right fairly often time after time.

Matt, you might be surpised to find out that Goosen said in today's press conference that the rough is heavier this year than it was in 2001. He said he was able to hit it to the green that year, but was wedging out more this year.

[Kalen Braley]

Matt,

I understand where you are coming from as I'm not a big fan of rough either.  But when comparing rough to shaved off surfaces near water hazards, its more calamtious on a players round to shave it down than it would be otherwise.  But if you are a sadist who loves to extract a brutal penalty for only being a few inches off line....  

Cliff,

I would agree that the architect intended it to be a hazard, but what we don't know if he intended for balls that were inches away from the green to end up going in the hazard.  Where-as for a shot that is more than a bit offline on the approach to that hole, it will likely find the hazard on its own...

[Matt_Ward]

George:

Interesting to hear Retief's take but I can mention the fact that there are plenty of players who see the PGA set-up situation as far better and more thorough than the "let's narrow the fairways to 20 yards and have hay IMMEDIATELY off each and every fairway approach."

Too many people on this site poo-poo the PGA Championship but the set-up they have created in the last number of years with Kerry H at the top of the preparation planning team.

George, I love Oakmont and the '07 event was superb. However, the course doesn't need rough heights one witnessed there for the sole purpose in making players hit SW's out sideways. Oakmont is strong enough as a course to defend itself without the cheap inclusion of growing grass to inane heights. I want to see the top players really want to hit driver instead of automatically opting for the clubdown approach that happens because course set-ups provide little gain for the long and straight driver.