[Tom_Doak]

JES:  I wasn't saying the pros should necessarily TRY to hit it down to the bottom of the hill, just that they all COULD get down there easily enough.

In the 2004 Open, the problem was the firmness of the green combined with the wind, as Tom Paul alluded to.  It got to the point that you had to hit within about four feet above the front of the green or else the ball was going to bounce over the back, and if you were short of course it was down the hill in front.  I bet you could find a few players who would take their chances on making that shot from 175 yards where they could SEE the spot, as opposed to making it blind from 80 yards.  It wasn't that firm 30 years ago, so Tom P. could attack the shot from 175 yards and have a reasonable chance of success.

But, I'd like to understand why you think my analysis of how the hole plays for the B player was wrong, if you disagreed with that part. 

[TEPaul]

TomD et al:

I'm not completely sure about it but I believe the firmness of that 10th green was as bad or worse than #7 in the '04 US Open. When Mike Davis got on the radio and transmitted those famous words "I think we have a problem" I am not certain it was the 7th green he was on or talking about.

One problem with #10 green is there is really no way at all of "sneaking up on it" if you get my drift. Whatever shot you hit in there it pretty much has to be flown to the green somehow from somewhere out there on the approach. The oddity is, as Wayne mentioned, it is not a small green and it is not shallow either.

[jkinney]

TomD et al:

I'm not completely sure about it but I believe the firmness of that 10th green was as bad or worse than #7 in the '04 US Open. When Mike Davis got on the radio and transmitted those famous words "I think we have a problem" I am not certain it was the 7th green he was on or talking about.

One problem with #10 green is there is really no way at all of "sneaking up on it" if you get my drift. Whatever shot you hit in there it pretty much has to be flown to the green somehow from somewhere out there on the approach. The oddity is, as Wayne mentioned, it is not a small green and it is not shallow either.

TEPaul,
   It was probably only 7 to which Davis was alluding, as I don't think groups had yet gotten to 10. The tenth green played tough as nails Sat. PM as the nor'wester started up, and the approach became downwind. Overall I would say that the approach from the hill or the valley is six of one, half dozen of the other, depending on the lie you have on the fairway - uphill or downhill. It's brutal, for instance, if your ball is still on the downslope of the valley at around 90-100 out. But it's no picnic if you're sidehill or downhill from 180 up top. Pick your poison. We've all been in both positions too many times on 10 fairway !
   The risk is in the tee shot choice, IMO, as one has to hit it dead on line to get it on fairway in the valley. There's 20 to 30 yds. of lateral leeway up top. I prefer hitting in from 180, where I can see the whole green. You're correct that the approach has to be carried to the green, except in one small area front left, which area is best place to aim for, IMO as the back left of the green is the only backstop, if one can even call it that.
    I don't think 10 green was unfair Sun. in the '04 Open. It's large enough for the pros to hold. It's just harder to do so when it's dead downwind, as it was that day.

[Roger Tufts]

Watching Tiger make 6 on this hole by spinning a wedge 80 yards down the front slope is probably my most vivid memory of the entire 2004 US Open. Had a great spot to watch it unfold from too.

That and his 2 on 18 on the final day, haha. They just did a great job preparing that course for that tournament.

[TEPaul]

jkinney:

I don't really know at this point (I will try to check with him one of these days if that's possible. It may not be and if not I can certainly understand ) but I think his remark happened before play began. We've tried to pump Michaud on this issue in the past and it's pretty clear we aren't going to get anywhere. I think all those on scene at that point know what happened but nobody wants to conduct some public post mortem at this point nor should they, in my opinion. It happened, they finished the tournament and they found a winner who played some remarkable golf.

Michaud made one interesting comment though and that was it's a damn good thing they did not have to have an 18 hole playoff on Monday! 

[jkinney]

If the USGA knew they were in trouble before play began the should have had Shinny's greens crew spritzing every green right ahead of the first group, IMO. The whole episode becomes that much worse of a blunder on their part if Davis made the remark before play began. Makes me want to puke.

[TEPaul]

"The whole episode becomes that much worse of a blunder on their part if Davis made the remark before play began. Makes me want to puke."

jkinney:

Well, I most certainly don't know the details of that particular circumstance so I'm saying I sure don't want to try to stipulate about anything. As I said, they got through it and crowned a champ who got through it with some really gutty golf. That was then and this is now and Mike Davis has two pretty spectacular US Open setups under his belt since then.

Let's look to the future!

PS:

The USGA's new firmness meter (The Thumber) is in action now to test firmness so that may never happen again. I'm told it was on hand in '04 but it was so untested at that point it was not really used or relied on.

[Adam Clayman]

Doesn't this hole illustrate the fallacy of two accepted norms. 1) Getting closer is better and, 2) Pros can stop a ball on sewer caps if they have to.

[TEPaul]

Excuse me, with my new maximum politeness progam I should be calling you Mr kinney. I apologize for the rude familiarlity! 

[TEPaul]

Adam:

There is no way at all a competitor in the '04 US Open should have considered laying back on the fairway ridge with an app 175 yard shot in. That would never have worked better than a 75 yard lob shot from the bottom of the hill. The green was obviously so firm it just wasn't accepting much of anything from any approach distance.

[jkinney]

TEPaul,
   You're right. Let's look to the future......Reminds me of my college hockey coach attempting to console me after I made a stupid mistake late in the 3rd period that allowed the opposition to score the winning goal.
He said - "Kinney, the best defensemen have made every mistake in the book. ONCE. "

[TEPaul]

My Dear Mr. kinney:

Cool advice from your coach. It's sort of the same thing in Rules officiating.

[JESII]

Adam:

There is no way at all a competitor in the '04 US Open should have considered laying back on the fairway ridge with an app 175 yard shot in. That would never have worked better than a 75 yard lob shot from the bottom of the hill. The green was obviously so firm it just wasn't accepting much of anything from any approach distance.

I am not so sure...I would guess that the landing area up top must be close to 75 feet higher than where those guys were playing from down below...the steeper angle the ball would land just may have helped stretch the range of depth players had to play with...also, by the nature of the fairway, when you are at the bottom you are pushed well to the right side so on your approach you are only looking at the left half of the green.

On that Sunday, the conditions were so extreme they were hitting two irons all the way to the drain that is about 60 yards from the front apron...I know these guys are the best wedge players in the world, but how many of them can generate enough spin, from that close, with that much wind helping?

I think the 8 iron from the top of the hill is coming in so much steeper that players have a much greater area to land the ball and stop it on the green.

[George Pazin]

Two quick things:

1) Any hole that has someone considering whether to lay up to 175 instead of 75 almost has to be great;

and

2) Any 410 yard hole that gives pros fits without resorting to water defenses also almost has to be great.

Two almost's = 1 must be.

 

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I've always felt that those players who are of US Open caliber are a whole lot more intuitive with what works for them and what doesn't strategically then most anyone gives them credit for. If they felt that it could benefit them to approach that green from on top of the fairway out around 175 yards I'm quite sure some would have done exactly that. I don't believe any of them did.

They are also pretty remarkable with those 60 degree wedges and what they can do with them.

I think the answer to this whole thing is simply that in the '04 Open, particularly that day, was the green was just so firm almost nothing from anywhere was going to check and hold on it.

[George Pazin]

I think the answer to this whole thing is simply that in the '04 Open, particularly that day, was the green was just so firm almost nothing from anywhere was going to check and hold on it.

How much less firm would it have to be to be too easy? Or is it always a challenge?

[JESII]

But, I'd like to understand why you think my analysis of how the hole plays for the B player was wrong, if you disagreed with that part. 

Tom,

I think the B player can play the hole many different ways, and is probably better able (mentally) to lay up to the top of the hill...if the conditions dictate that the specific shot would be a lay up.

This is a hole that, with todays distances, seems near impossible to lay back on because the pros would have to hit 5 irons with no wind, and then a 7 iron...it seems goofy.

The 15 handicapper can likely hit a more 'comfortable' lay up club like a rescue of three wood and then go at the green with a rescue of some sort. So long as the expectation is not hitting the green in regulation every time, I think the hole is great for a B player...

[Matt_Ward]

The '04 situation featured a 10th hole that was way too firm. The playability of the hole became a clear issue. It should serve as food for thought for future Open events -- if they should happen at Shinny.

One other thing -- I can't believe anyone would surmise that the 10th is the most underrated hole in all of golf. I believe the 10th has always been respected by people who are knowledgeable in golf.

[George Pazin]

The '04 situation featured a 10th hole that was way too firm. The playability of the hole became a clear issue. It should serve as food for thought for future Open events -- if they should happen at Shinny.

One other thing -- I can't believe anyone would surmise that the 10th is the most underrated hole in all of golf. I believe the 10th has always been respected by people who are knowledgeable in golf.

As I said in my opening post, the reason for calling it underrated is that it never seems to pop up on anyone's list of great par 4s. The fact that it is just over 400 yards and lacks obvious penal hazards like water makes it that much more impressive to me. I certainly didn't mean that knowledgeable folks didn't appreciate it.

How difficult is it for the A or B player under more normal conditions?

[Matt_Ward]

George:

I stand by what I said previously -- the hole was never underrated or thought of in a lesser light. You may have come to that conclusion but I don't know of others who have.

No doubt at Shinnecock there's plenty of attention given to such holes as the short par-3 11th which follows.

Nonetheless, when prepared properly the 10th stands alongside any hole of the course for the quality it provides and for opening up one of the best back nines in all of golf that I have played.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sully:

I've always felt that those players who are of US Open caliber are a whole lot more intuitive with what works for them and what doesn't strategically then most anyone gives them credit for. If they felt that it could benefit them to approach that green from on top of the fairway out around 175 yards I'm quite sure some would have done exactly that. I don't believe any of them did.

They are also pretty remarkable with those 60 degree wedges and what they can do with them.

I think the answer to this whole thing is simply that in the '04 Open, particularly that day, was the green was just so firm almost nothing from anywhere was going to check and hold on it.

TEPaul,

I think that's an interesting observation.

I believe that the method of choice may have evolved from the first modern Open at Shinnecock to the most recent.

Wind and turf conditions would effect the choice as well

[JESII]

For those of you thought/think #10 at Shinnecock was over the top in 2004, do you think playing a balata ball would have helped the guys stop the shot from 75 yards?

[TEPaul]

"For those of you thought/think #10 at Shinnecock was over the top in 2004, do you think playing a balata ball would have helped the guys stop the shot from 75 yards?"


Sully:

Yes, to a degree. To what degree I do not know. But I do realize it is also possible for a green surface to get so firm that even the best shot imaginable with a really high spin ball basically won't work either.

[JESII]

Tom,

I don't think #10 was there that day.


What type of design features could encourage the return of the high spin ball?

[TEPaul]

"What type of design features could encourage the return of the high spin ball?"

Sully:

A lot of things, certainly firmer greens, green designs that don't so much cant up to the oncoming golfer, tight little green sections well guarded, even perhaps this new groove reg. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()