[Kevin Rawley]

Why does the USGA take Oakland Hills, reduce par and according to Johnny Miller, make fairways 4 yards narrower than the last time they hosted a US Open?

Its match play, so why trick up the course? Wouldn't match play be better with two more par 5's and wider fairways?

[THuckaby2]

Par is irrelevant in stroke play.  It's REALLY irrelevant in match play.  In each case the lowest score wins, not the lowest score in relation to par....

I have no idea what the USGA is thinking here, other than giving the top Ams a good "test."  But you're right, this seems so wrong as to border on absolute stupidity.

TH

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

Is there a difference between disagreeing with a course set up and declaring it "absolute stupidity"?

Won't the lowest score win on each hole at Oakland Hills?  Does the set up change that fact?

[THuckaby2]

Tim:

Obviously the lowest score wins the hole, whether they hold the US Amateur at a tricked-up Oakland Hills or on the parking lot of the WalMart I drive by on the way home.

What strikes me as bordering on absolute stupidity is an organization feeling the need to change a course when no change is needed.  Sure, I will give the USGA the benefit of the doubt if they want to "protect par" for the US Open -  whether I agree with it or not, I can see their argument.

But what is the purpose behind changing a course for the US Amateur, unless it is VERY weak to begin with, which Oakland Hills certainly isn't?  What in the world is the purpose of changing the "par" designation for a match play event?

That to me is indeed, yes, stupid.

And I am typically a USGA supporter in all arguments.

TH

[Mike Benham]

I suspect the USGA is driven to be the keeper of the "true test of golf" which is at or above par.  

I agree that par has no reference in match play, but the USGA has ALWAYS made a course more difficult by pinching the fairways and growing the rough ... as my dad use to say "it's just the way it is ..."

Btw, I played Pebble before the 1999 US Am and the 2000 US Open and I swear the fairways were narrower in 1999.

[THuckaby2]

Mike - others have said that about Pebble also... but then they were using it as a testing ground for the 2000 Open.  They changed the par designation on #2 to four for the first time at that USAm, again to test it.

That to me seems fine and although the stupidity of par designations for match play remains, at least they had a purpose.

Unless they are doing the same thing for a future USOpen at Oakland Hills, I fail to see the purpose of what they are doing for the Am this week.

But maybe we've answered the question here....

TH

[Geoff Shackelford]

It would seem that the purpose of going to a venue like Oakland Hills would somehow be tied to the quality of its architecture. So why mask the design elements (width, recovery play, par-5's) that would create more compelling and challenging match play situations? I know, I know, both players are playing the same hole, yada, yada. But if that's what it all boils down to, why not just go to some place with 18 par-4's in the 480 range with no features and 25-yard wide fairways surrounded by four inch rough? As Max Behr once said, the USGA is are reducing golf to "mere trap shooting."

Oakland Hills has SO much to add to the match play equation, particularly with #18 as a reachable par-5. It's really sad the USGA has so little understanding of what makes match play golf so compelling, or why they insist on entering themselves into the equation all the time, instead of letting the focus of the golf be on the players and the course.  



“And thus, owing to the stress today placed upon competition in golf, golf architecture has come to be rationalized. The old road which seemed to wonder with no intent or purpose, and from which wandered off byroads to fool the traveler, has now become a well posted concrete highway. Every inducement is offered to step upon the accelerator as long as one can keep the car of skill from slipping into the rough...golf must be reduced to a species of trap-shooting. If he can shoot straighter than his brother, he should be rewarded. Therefore it is only right and proper that there should be a marketplace in which to dispose of his wares. This is a definite area, a fairway, which will reward him if he can keep his ball upon it, and punish him if he does not succeed. This true golf, a sport similar to wild shooting over a good dog, has degenerated in the degree that this demand has come to be satisfied.” - Max Behr, 1926

[Ethan Gundeck]

This is a great discussion - i have often thought it would be interesting to set up a course specificaly designed for match play, with lots of risk reward holes (the 10th at the Belfry comes to mind) that might seem too easy or difficult in stroke play but that would force decision making and strategy in a matchplay situation where score doesn't matter.

[Ethan Gundeck]

This is a great discussion - i have often thought it would be interesting to set up a course specificaly designed for match play, with lots of risk reward holes (the 10th at the Belfry comes to mind) that might seem too easy or difficult in stroke play but that would force decision making and strategy in a matchplay situation where score doesn't matter.

[BCrosby]

Ethan -

You have hit on one of the major themes that run through GolfClubAtlas.  More courses should be built and maintained with match play in mind.  It would allow for more quirk and interest.  One of the reasons that courses in Scotland have so many blind shots, mounds, severe bunkers that function as real hazards, etc., is that golf is more often played there in a match play format.  Taking an 8 on a hole doesn't ruin a round.

To much concern with medal play results in too much concern with "fairness" and results, to quote Geoff's quote of Behr, in golf as "trap shooting."  Golf becomes merely a test of who is the straightest shooter.

Brad Klein has often made the same point.  He has written frequently about how match play should be re-emphasized in architecture.  It would open up design alternatives that are not now being used, at least not in the US.

I agree with those sentiments.  It appears from the USGA set up at the US Am, that they hold the opposite view.

Bob

[doc817]

This thought comes to mind....At my club, the greens chairman is in charge of modifications to the layout.  Every chair in the past 20 years has felt compelled to leave his mark, whether change is needed or not.  Perhaps the USGA guy in charge is doing just that....leaving his mark.."For years all they talked about was how narrow the fairways were at Oakland in '02.  Well Sonny, that was MY idea."

[Ralph Livingston]

Did architects design courses for match or medal has been one of the questions I have been asking for a while. After playing many of the great links courses it seems obvious some were. MacKenzie describing the 18th at Cypress being built for deciding a match coming to it (and why it is so "easy", a 3.5 par 4) is a good example. It seems like the best holes for match are .5 holes, say for a par 4 a 3.5 or a 4.5 rating. Solid 4's, or 5's, seem like they don't bring out much in a player in match play.
Back to the links courses, it seems like the quirky holes are outstanding match holes but are difficult to use in a national championship because they require so much personal knowledge. Which means that a match on North Berwick with a number of international, and/or relatively novices to that course would find it unfair, but of course the members have outstanding matches. Maybe the USGA is required to dumb down the course so that it is fair to the players that lack the opportunity to develop local knowledge. When you are back to target golf with 20 yard wide fairways and bunkers on both sides of the landing area, the only thing they need to learn for local knowledge is the greens. That keeps it "fair" for a large contingent of unknowledgable competitors.

[Tim Weiman]

Tom Huckaby:

I'm a supporter of USGA set ups for US Opens largely because I believe the four majors should present different tests.  By that I mean each major should disproportionately emphasize testing different skills, e.g., accuracy for the US Open.

But, that's for the US Open.

Honestly, when it comes to the Amateur, I've never put as much thought to the question of course set up.  Nor have I thought much about course selection for this event.  So, maybe that's why I can't get worked up to the point of declaring "absolute stupidity" in this instance, but wouldn't have that much trouble using similiar language when it comes to the Masters direction on course set up.

Call me lazy.

[THuckaby2]

Tim:  fair enough, I was just responding to this thread.  It's not like I'm sitting here seething at the USGA and wishing locusts to rain down on Michigan... but as a great man once said, stupid is as stupid does.

And this is indeed stupid.

Calling em as I see em....

TH

[Steve Lapper]

New idea!!

Rip out 18 bowling alleys from nearby Flint area...place them in a nearby nature preserve, give everyone minature putters and old gutta-percha balls.....

Everything would be there...nature, tradition, etc...

[egundeck]

Ralph:
i completely agree with the concept of "half" par holes being more interesting. because each individuals score obviously needs to be a whole number, it forces the player to take a chance or be more conservative and risk losing ground.
"half" pars are also great in stroke play. one reason the masters can be such an exciting tournament are the 13th and 15th holes, both reachable par 5s.
i would like to see more par 3.5s, that is drivable par 4s. i think the tour is by and large scared of these types of holes because they would lower the score in relation to par.

ethan

[Ralph Livingston]

It isn't the USGA's fault. The players all want that kind of course to play. The guys I have talked with consider a penal/Jones style course (not there words, just what they describe) the right thing to play. It is in their mentality and it is not going to be changed soon. Most of these guys have no clue what strategic golf is. How many of the pros really play golf for fun? This what they know and keeps them in their comfort zone. I think it is a lot like trying to explain lines of play, course management, why trees need to come down to a club member. They knows what they knows and they knows what they like.
This site has a lot of educating to do. Glad it is here.

[THuckaby2]

Very good points, Ralph.  So I can understand setting up the course as they have, to eliminate local knowledge and create the "fair test" the players want.  As much as I'd like to see "half par" distance holes and agree with many others here at how much better those are for match play, I can at least understand the thinking here for a national championship.

What I still find stupid is changing the par designation on holes.  How does par possibly matter for a match play event?

TH

[Ralph Livingston]

There is no reason to change "par" for a hole except for the publics perception. Outside the people on this forum the majority of golfers think that is the way it should be. Most people rarely play match, except if you are a club member, and then alot of times only in your club championship. They carry what they know over from medal play. Match play is difficult in the US. A better  question than "why reduce fairways...." is why clubs in the US aren't pushing for more match play like in the UK? They play matches constantly and this par changing (along with a number of other US things) would not even remotely be an issue. I know this is getting off topic-ish, but more match play would help change peoples perception of the game, in a positive way. I think they would develop a deeper appreciation for stratagey/course management.

[Ralph Livingston]

Tom:
Where in Michigan are you? I am in Grand Rapids. Tom Werkmeister plays at my club.
Ralph

[THuckaby2]

Ralph - I talk like I know this course, but I don't - I've just seen it on TV.  It's the principles here I am haranguing against.  As I type this I sit in Oakland all right, but the home of the A's and Raiders, in CA!

TH

[Ralph Livingston]

Sorry Tom, thought you said something earlier about being in MI.

I do need to say that I have the good fortune to play with some USGA guys in the US and Scotland in Matches with the Brits. Trust me, these guys know match play.
Ralph

[Patrick_Mucci]

The root of the problem may have started many years ago when an individual stated, with words to the effect that;
"the best way to reward a good tee shot is to punish a bad one".  So, narrow fairways and heavy rough became the norm.

Had that individual stated that the best way to reward a good tee shot is to give it the absolute best approach for the second shot, the entire philosophy of competitive course set-up might have changed.

In defense of the USGA, with wide fairways, balls and equipment that propel the ball further and straighter, to unthought of distances, how do you retain any elements of the strategy provided by the original architecture   ?

Remember also that the first two rounds of the US Amateur are MEDAL play rounds, reducing the competitors to a field of
64 players.

I think it is a dilema, and I think it will get worse until the ball and equipment are brought back to:
FIT THE INTENDED ARCHITECTURE.

The game of golf needs STABILITY.

[TEPaul]

I've come to believe that fairway width should never be looked at as something in and of itself--either narrow or wide. The widths of fairways generally should depend on other things!!

In some cases a narrow fairway might work well in the particular strategy of a golf hole and in another case (on the same course) another type of hole might call for a very wide fairway.

One of the most formulaic and stultifying things that has happened to golf and it's architecture is that courses  maintain uniform width of fairway (30-35yd) and unfortunately the vast, vast majority of golf courses do that! There're certainly logical reasons why that happened in the first place like the uniform design of irrigation systems--particularly the single row system following WW2 that cast water in 30-35 yd width.

That's probably the primary reason fairways went to uniform widths and stayed that way (because people forgot that  they'd narrowed them solely for the single row irrigation systems after WW2) but that certainly doesn't make it right (architecturally) and so often that uniformity of fairway width corrupts and restricts otherwise very strategic architecture and the options which create strategies!

But when the original single line irrigation systems came into prevalence following WW2 probably the last thing anyone was thinking of was golf architecture and certainly not some of the interesting and sophisticated strategies that went along with it. All they were doing was trying to keep some grass irrigated and nice to play off of--and that's what happened--uniform fairway width only due to irrigation systems design!

The best way to decide what the optimum fairway width should be for any particular hole is first to consider everything else that exists about that golf hole--topography, fairway bunkering, green shape and orientation, green-end bunkering, green slope and contour and then tailor the fairway width to optimize all those things and all their particular risk/reward factors!

Fairway width is not something in and of itself, in my opinion--it should only be utilized to maximize the rest of the interest of a golf hole and certainly never to stultify, restrict or minimize it!

And that doesnt mean all fairways should be wide or narrow--they should be whatever the entire hole calls for because of all the other things about that hole!

But the USGA apparently decided (with Joe Dey) that if fairways were of uniform width (and they had come to be that) then why not just create a particular uniform challenge to go with it--uniform accuracy!

And so they began to narrow those uniform fairway widths (all originally for irrigation reasons) more and more with no real thought to the overall meaning, options and strategies of golf holes!

[Andrew Roberts]

I believe with Mike Benham.  The USGA has this image of having deep rough with narrow green fairways and fast greens with hard hole locations.  All in the protection of par.    

And I also agree with Tom H. that they're testing Oakland Hills for future US Opens and I believe they are testing the players to see just how good the pros will be in a few years and how far they can hit it.  You think the USGA should know that by now.

The USGA also believes that their set up for the open is perfect.  Defend par and the best will win.  That is what they believe and they will do it for the US Am.  They believe that if the course is set up for a winning score of even par that a worthy winner will win.  

You know that the USGA was actually trying to make the course play reel tough in the 36 hole medal play to protect their image and par.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()