US Am at Olympic

[Mike Benham]

I watched most of the action on Saturday.

The conditions were cool and overcast and there was moisture in the turf.

I spoke with a USGA official after he stimped the 8th green, they were running between 12 - 12.5 (note:  I can not verify that the technique he was using was accurate or if he had an "official" USGA stimper, I just took his word for it ).

Vegas is a big boy and it was easy to spot his U of Texas coach, he was all decked out in burnt orange too ... Vegas uncorked a 320 yard drive on the first hole, leaving 210 to the green ... so much for the heavy seaside air.

The finalists both have O Club connections for Sunday's final as Thompson has one of the old time regular caddies on his bag while Knost has one of the top amateur player of the club on his.

[Kevin_Reilly]

while Knost has one of the top amateur player of the club on his.

Yes, that would be "Molinari" (sic).  Golf Channel and NBC have gotten it wrong two days in a row...let's see if they can get it correct today...Molinelli.

[Mike Benham]

while Knost has one of the top amateur player of the club on his.

Yes, that would be "Molinari" (sic).  Golf Channel and NBC have gotten it wrong two days in a row...let's see if they can get it correct today...Molinelli.

And Molinelli is a dead ringer for Greg Maddux ...


Ps:  There was a Gib sighting ...

[Joel_Stewart]

Glad to Knost win, he was the best player there and deserved to win.  I was kind of pulling for Thompson because he employed a caddy I use named Freddy.  He is the #1 caddie from Olympic and I would have loved to see him win.

[ed_getka]

I was pulling for Thompson too, as I never want to see anyone with a long putter win anything.

Wasn't it the 10th hole in 1998 where Payne Stewart ended up in a divot? Twice today they said it was on #12.

[Kevin_Reilly]

No Ed, it was the 12th as well in 1998.

[ed_getka]

Kevin,
    Thanks for the confirmation. I'm not even 50 and my memory already sucks.

[TEPaul]

Matt Cohn reported on Aug 19:

"*Two USGA guys have been measuring everyone's launch stats on #17 Lake during the practice rounds with a very fancy machine. I walked by today and asked to see the numbers. Ball speeds varied from the mid 140's to 181.

The next group after I arrived included a guy named John Hurley. I nearly soiled myself when he registered a 191 mph ball speed and 129 mph swing speed. The ball hissed for about 100 yards off the clubface and carried 300 yards, uphill, into the wind.

That was the fastest the two USGA guys had seen all summer, including the US Open. Just for comparison, that's 8-10 mph of ball speed faster than Tiger and Bubba Watson."


Matt:

That's the same young man who pretty much shocked those USGA tech guys at Merion's hole #5 at the US Am in '05. His ball speed that day was higher, something like 194 or 197. He's capable of getting it over 200mph. I checked with the tech guy you probably spoke with out there for about a year after that and he said the USGA has never seen a ball speed that high.

John Hurley got my attention when I ran into him at the Nebraska Match Play Championship. I didn't know the golf course but the fact that he was driving it about 75 to 100 yards past his oponent got my attention. So I measured one of his downwind drives on one par 5 and he got it out there exactly 400 yards. On the next hole into a pretty stiff wind he got it out there 330.

He lost that match on the 19th hole in the quarterfinals in what I called perhaps the best "tortoise vs hare" match I've ever seen.

At Philly CC he drove a ball in practice on #8 almost into the greenside bunker. That hole is 400 yards and uphill.

Some months later I asked him if anyone has ever driven it by him and he said only now and then. Then I asked him if anyone has ever driven it by him with regularity and he just said; "Not yet."

He's a very nice young man who goes to Texas Tech now. Back then he was in high school.

Those players he was with in that practice round at Philly CC were all long and they were pretty stunned by him. The odd thing is most of the time he was about 10-20 yards ahead of them but a few times he was out there 50+ yards ahead of them.

Even though he didn't know the course he seemed to be able to tell right away he really caught one because he would mention it right at the tee before walking forward.

Back then he had a driver he hit pretty low on sort of a flat beeline trajectory. When I asked him about that he said he broke his "optimized" driver but he liked the stock one he had because he could hit it low into the wind of Nebraska.

I can only imagine how far he could hit it if he used an "optimized" driver that got the ball into the air like most of these young bombers today.

He's a big tall rangy young man and it's pretty obvious just looking at him that he can kill it even though he has a pretty short backswing and a very pretty swing at that. However, when his arms and hands are coming through the impact zone you can hardly see them and the ball is outta there so fast it can be hard to pick up sometimes. And you're right, the ball leaving the tee does have a sort of other-worldly zinging sound.

But if anyone wants to see what the ultimate in long ball performance looks like make a point of watching Nebraska's Long John Hurley.

In top flight tournaments (US Open and US Amateur) that the USGA Tech Center monitors with their computer equipment, to my knowledge they have never seen anyone, not even Tiger, Bubba Watson, Daly or J.D. Holmes, with a ball speed as high as this guy.

[TEPaul]

Matt:

However, in 3-4 attempts in the US Amateur, I don't think John Hurley has made match play and believe me this guy can really play---can really go low. He's got some course records.

But on courses like Merion East or Olympic in US Ams I just don't think his ultra length does him any good and I can't see that he's even wild.

In my opinion, like Davis Love did at the Walker Cup at Pine Valley in the '80s Hurley probably could've qualified for match play if he'd used only irons.

[Jim Nugent]

Tom, how far does Hurley hit his 2 or 3 iron?  As far as most longish players hit their drivers?  

[Matt_Cohn]

Probably 270 or 280, maybe even a little more.

Tom,
You're right, I can't imagine trying to fit a driver into any of those fairways at Olympic with that sort of ball speed. It just seems impossible.

[wsmorrison]

John Hurley hit a 5 iron pin high to the 17th green at Merion East during the Amateur.  It was playing 245 yards.  The hole plays about 20 feet downhill.  At the time of his shot, it was into a bit of a breeze (1/2 club).

[Kevin_Reilly]

He's a very nice young man who goes to Texas Tech now.

He's an Aggie...A&M.

Back then he had a driver he hit pretty low on sort of a flat beeline trajectory. When I asked him about that he said he broke his "optimized" driver but he liked the stock one he had because he could hit it low into the wind of Nebraska.

I can only imagine how far he could hit it if he used an "optimized" driver that got the ball into the air like most of these young bombers today.

He still is using relatively older technology compared to the rest of the field...a 2+ yr old Titleist 905T or S (I couldn't tell which one...~400 cc's...the rest of the field was almost uniformly using a 460 cc driver).

[Mike Benham]

So, if the USGA likes the changes at Olympic, Shackelford probably doesn't


From today's SF Chronicle:

"Mike Davis, the USGA's senior director of rules and competitions, gave his stamp of approval to recent changes on Olympic Club's Lake Course - but he also welcomed the idea of restoring some slope to the 18th green.

That green caused consternation during the 1998 U.S. Open, especially when Payne Stewart watched one putt trickle about 20 feet past the hole. Olympic Club officials later flattened the green, figuring that was the only way the USGA would return with another Open (as it will in 2012).

Now many club members think the green is too tame. There is widespread support to raise the back of the putting surface, a move Davis and other USGA officials clearly would endorse.

"It's much easier now, but it's definitely not a docile green," Davis said Sunday. "If it was somewhere between what it is now and what it was (in '98), that probably would be best. If they did change it before 2012, we would support it."

Davis also is leaning toward flipping the pars on two holes for the next Open at Olympic - turning No. 1 into a par-4 and No. 17 into a par-5. No. 1, which weaves downhill and measures 533 yards, ranked as the easiest hole during stroke play at this U.S. Amateur, with an average score of 4.94. The tee would be moved up if the hole played as a par-4.

No. 17, a 491-yard uphill beast with a treacherous green, plays as a par-5 for the members, but it's usually a par-4 in USGA events. No. 17 was the most difficult hole during stroke play, with an average score of 5.06, more than a full stroke over par."

[Joel_Stewart]

Amazing.  The people at Olympic will now jump.  Everything is done to appease the USGA.  Aside from the turf and tree management, not one thing has been done for the member enjoyment.

The greens are all going to be blown up and planted with a new bent and the club management is hoping and wishing without any evidence that the poa and nemitode problems will go away.

[Kevin_Reilly]

Amazing.  The people at Olympic will now jump.  Everything is done to appease the USGA.  Aside from the turf and tree management, not one thing has been done for the member enjoyment.

I don't understand this in relation to the above...do you know any members who favor the (current) flatter 18th green?

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I think a tee on 17 should be added to give another 50 yards to the hole. They can put the tee back on the Ocean course. I find the green to be a really great par 5 green complex but a bit over the top for a long demanding par 4.

[AndrewB]

Davis also is leaning toward flipping the pars on two holes for the next Open at Olympic - turning No. 1 into a par-4 and No. 17 into a par-5. No. 1

Randy Haag said exactly the same thing to me earlier this year when I asked him if they really play 17 as a par four.  Playing one as a par four would make that tough stretch start right from the beginning.

In the afternoon round Colt Knost hit the trees on the right of the fifth with his tee shot.  On the walk down to the fairway he said to Mike Davis, "Sir, do you still not think that tree is in the way?".  Mike Davis said "You didn't even hit it" to which Colt said "Yes I did" and then they discussed it all the way down to the fairway.  They seemed to be going back and forth -- arguing each side -- and the only other piece I heard was Colt say "... then you can cut off as much as you want".  Mike Davis had a nice smirk on his face after the conversation, so I wouldn't expect to hear the USGA saying they "endorse" those trees being removed any time soon.

[Peter_Herreid]

Amazing.  The people at Olympic will now jump.  Everything is done to appease the USGA.  Aside from the turf and tree management, not one thing has been done for the member enjoyment.

The greens are all going to be blown up and planted with a new bent and the club management is hoping and wishing without any evidence that the poa and nemitode problems will go away.

Joel--re: re-grassing the greens.  Is this a done deal, and if so, what is the timetable?  Or is it still in the conjecture stage?

[Matt_Cohn]

Playing #1 from a 490 or 500 would make for a terribly awkward teeshot.

Besides, given the brutality of 2-5, who needs a 500 yard par-4 for the first hole, too?

Regarding #17, it really was over the top for a par-4. I wonder if 5% of players hit that green in regulation? I certainly doubt if it was as high as 10%. I agree that it would be a "better" hole if played as designed, from 530 or so. I love the idea of a hard par-4 at that point in the round but the combination of 491 yards and that green is a bit much.

If you played #1 as a par 4 then the only par-5's would be #16 and #17. It works for Baltusrol, I guess. I just don't know that #1 makes a good par-4.

[Mike Benham]

Playing #1 from a 490 or 500 would make for a terribly awkward teeshot.

Just like many of the other tee shots on The Lake?

#1 on The Lake as a par-5 is similar to 13 at AGNC, if you hit the correctly shaped tee shot, you have an excellant chance at eagle or birdie.  If you don't, you take your medicine, make a routine par and kick yourself for the few holes.  But that type of hole is not the usual USGA mantra.


One change that they could make to improve the playability of the hole is to mow a strip of fairway between the bunkers short of the green.  This would increase bold play for those so inclined.

[AndrewB]

Matt, what if 17 was 450 uphill instead of 490 uphill?  It would still be very tough and perhaps not so tough that it's "over the top".  What do you think?

Mike, I don't see a strip of fairway between the bunkers on one encouraging me to go at the green.  Those bunkers are well short and I'd think you have to be able to carry them by quite a bit to get onto the green, even with the downslope.  Is that true?

[Matt_Cohn]

Mike,

There's a difference between awkward (Lake #1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 12, 17) and *terribly* awkward, which I think #1 would be from 500 yards.

And if your response is that they don't have to hit driver, then why not just have them hit driver from the back tee instead of 3 wood from the forward one?!

I think the teeshot is an interesting one now, and if anything maybe they could move the green back, equidistant with the new #2 back tee.

I'm just not comfortable with the amount of slice a 300-yard teeshot from the forward tee on #1 would require - especially being blind, to a very slopey section of that fairway.

[Mike Benham]

There is a tee box, about 50 yards up and to the left (near the parking lot) that would make a nice longish par-4 that would not require a big bending tee ball to keep it in play.  

There is fairway grass between the bunkers for every day play and knowing that there is 4" rough makes the players play extra cautious on the distance they hit their layup.  If it was playable, some might take the risk of shoot the gap or maybe not.

I don't think there is any chance of moving the green back as it would only increase the chance of approach shots slicing onto 2 tee ...

[Joel_Stewart]

At the 98 Open they placed a grandstand on the back part of the 1st tee.  As a result they used the middle part of the tee.  I suspect they will do the same and even the front part of the tee for 2012.  It also depends on the rough lines since the angle is awkward.

Peter: As for the greens, they really have a short time period, 2012 is not that far away.  I suspect in the next 2 years?  The key is who is going to perform the pre work and in Olympics case, the key decision is who is going to do the shaping, in house or the lowest bidder.  They have not shown any indication of hiring any known experts in the past.

Kevin:  Does anyone really like the 18th or the 15th or #4 and especially #8 compared to the old greens?  The problem is the club does not have a forum to discuss this and it sadly  comes down to two non members who make the decisions, Pat and Bill.  Everyone else are sheep.