[Craig Sweet]

Hmmm...USGA is going to shorten the 14th to 277 yards.....I think this is a great move....risk/reward of hitting that green will be difficult.

[Brad Klein]

Somebody beat you to it, Craig:

http://www.golfweek.com/story/torrey-14th-news-052108

[Jon Spaulding]

Good decision. The approach into that green will be diabolical at elevated green speeds....especially if the rear bank is shaved. The more you bail out to the right the more the barranca comes into play (from the rough anyway).

[Bill_McBride]

It's hard to believe the USGA could make it fun to watch the Open at Oakmont last year, but one of the main reasons was how they shortened up the short par 4s.  That was FUN to watch!

Hopefully this will help the Torrey Pines Open as well.

[Matt_Cohn]

Is it possible/tempting at all? Or too dangerous?

[Paul Saathoff]

I read that the USGA isn't concerned about "protecting" par so much this year and that they would be fine with a winning score of around 10 under.  Should make for an interesting and possibly fun US Open to watch with another driveable 4, a par 3 that will be played under 150, and a reachable closing par 5 (what par 5 isn't reachable for these guys though). 

[Mike Bowline]

But why only on Sunday? Seems like a good idea and should at least be tried during one of the two first rounds for a total of two times IMO.

[John Sheehan]

Let's just say that I am cautiously optimistic.  From the GolfWeek article:

"Golfweek learned that the fairway toward the green of the par-4 14th hole (which normally plays 435 yards) recently was narrowed. .... The narrowed fairway approach makes sense for players opting to go for the putting surface."

Oh, really?  "makes sense" for whom or from what perspective?

I say,"cautiously," because I have serious doubts that the USGA will be enlightened enough to have the proper maintenance meld.  When they start talking about "narrowing the fairway toward the green" my guess is this can mean only one thing: thick USGA inspected rough. 

The USGA touted their wisdom and creativity in allowing those closely mown chipping areas around the greens of Pinehurst during the US Opens there.  What they didn't do was examine the strategy of the holes; or if they did, they then chose to ignore it.  Thus, where Ross had created wide fairways and cross-bunkers, the USGA surrounded those bunkers on three sides with thick rough, completely nullifying their strategic placement.  In fairways designed to be wide, to allow the golfers to attacked the greens from a preferred line of their choice, the USGA narrowed the fairways as thin as a 1960's Carnaby Street tie, thereby taking away the strategy of the hole and forcing everyone to hit from what the USGA deigned the "center" of their fairways.

I hope they prepare the 14th so that it actually does tempt the players to drive it, but I have some serious, history born, skepticism.

[Steve Kline]

John - this is different guy doing setups now. In his first chance last year, he did some interesting things at Oakmont. Now, he's going to some more at Torrey Pines.

It seems to me this is akin to episode of Seinfeld where everything started to go George's way but Elaine started getting screwed. It's the USGA is George and the Masters is Elaine. One seems to be moving in the right direction (maybe not fast enough for some but it is the right direction) and the other the wrong one.

[Brad Klein]

Actually, it's a Kramer thing.

The USGA wants to see stuff happen, esp. on Sunday. By narrowing the fairway approach into 14, they create a defined ideal path, but also the promise of risk to a slightly wayward approach. To get to the front left pin you'd have to run something in, given the sharp right-to-left slope of the green. If you can find the path, great. If you miss it left, you can bail out back right and manage. but no eagle and only a very long putt for birdie. If you miss the tee shot right, you can't possibly get the next shot close and it brings the front right bunker into play as well as the back left fall off into doomsday.

That's the intent, anyway, to create more options plus better definition of the risks and rewards.

My bet is they wouldn't do it the first two days because it will slow play down as folks on the tee would have to wait for the green to clear, so they can only do it on the weekend when the field is smaller. By delaying to Sunday they create eagle opportunities there (and on a shortened 18th) so that a 2-3 shot lead is not at all safe.

[BCrosby]

I'm not sure I understand.

Given the severe tilt of the green and its surrounding bunkers, what is the value proposition in making the fw no wider than a 1960's Carnaby Street tie? Pros can gouge wedges from anywhere, no?

Why not take out the rough and let errant tee balls run into real trouble?

Bob

[Carl Rogers]

As an alternative to the usga typical historical course set-up is to create a series of holes that radically change from day to day.  The superior golfer can readily get too used a hole and it becomes less of a challenge.  Make them think and shift mental gears ... the game needs more of this not less.

A different day, a different course ... the set up for the future.

[John Sheehan]

John - this is different guy doing setups now. In his first chance last year, he did some interesting things at Oakmont. Now, he's going to some more at Torrey Pines.

It seems to me this is akin to episode of Seinfeld where everything started to go George's way but Elaine started getting screwed. It's the USGA is George and the Masters is Elaine. One seems to be moving in the right direction (maybe not fast enough for some but it is the right direction) and the other the wrong one.

Actually, it's a Kramer thing.

The USGA wants to see stuff happen, esp. on Sunday. By narrowing the fairway approach into 14, they create a defined ideal path, but also the promise of risk to a slightly wayward approach. To get to the front left pin you'd have to run something in, given the sharp right-to-left slope of the green. If you can find the path, great. If you miss it left, you can bail out back right and manage. but no eagle and only a very long putt for birdie. If you miss the tee shot right, you can't possibly get the next shot close and it brings the front right bunker into play as well as the back left fall off into doomsday.

That's the intent, anyway, to create more options plus better definition of the risks and rewards.

My bet is they wouldn't do it the first two days because it will slow play down as folks on the tee would have to wait for the green to clear, so they can only do it on the weekend when the field is smaller. By delaying to Sunday they create eagle opportunities there (and on a shortened 18th) so that a 2-3 shot lead is not at all safe.

Steve & Brad,
Look, it's not that I think the entire USGA is, as a group, unenlightened about GCA.  But the reality is one or two lonely voices get lost in the political shuffle of the seeminly over-riding mission: protecting par.  I don't have any special insight into the decision-making process of the USGA.  But I have seen enough historically from this august group to be skeptical.  And I have seen enough corporate decision making up close to know how it works. 

If I am wrong, I will be the first to applaud them.  And I hope my instincts are incorrect. 

But, making one or two tactical decisions while ignoring the overall strategic picture is akin to rebranding the voyage of the Titanic as a "Romantic Moonlight Iceberg Cruise."  To probably over-work the business analogy, when the primary strategy seems to be "protect par," it is easy to get caught up in a few marketing initiatives that tout some exciting new "feature."  But until they start looking at each course separately, pay due respect to the overall strategic intent and then marry the course set-up and maintenace to the strategy, I expect that we will continue to see an approach that misses the larger picture and instead focuses on selling us some "exciting new" USGA sanctioned tactical feature.

I'm not sure I understand.

Given the severe tilt of the green and its surrounding bunkers, what is the value proposition in making the fw no wider than a 1960's Carnaby Street tie? Pros can gouge wedges from anywhere, no?

Why not take out the rough and let errant tee balls run into real trouble?

Bob

Bob,  Amen. 

I read that the USGA isn't concerned about "protecting" par so much this year and that they would be fine with a winning score of around 10 under.   

Paul,
Until they stop focusing on a score, any score, whether it's par or ten-under, back to my reply to Brad & Steve:  They will continue to make tactical decisions that ignore the overall stategy.  Maybe this is the way it will work.  Maybe the only way to change the ridiculous set-ups is to change incrementally.  I don't know.  The irony is that if they stopped focusing on "score," and simply set the course up well, scores would not be an issue.  Take for example last year's Grand Slam of Golf (or whatever they call it) at Mid Ocean.  With the exception of changing the tee dramatically on the 18th hole, they did little to make the course play differently than it normally does, with the exception of firmness and speed through the green.  After two days on a course that many (including members) thought the pro's would eat alive, the winning score was what?  I think 4-under, by the winners of last year's major championships.  And we got to see some great golf on a great strategic course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()