Does Scoring Matter?

[Jeff_Lewis]

Much energy has been expended on this site and in the press speculating on the winning score at BPB. Every player who comes off the course after a practice round is asked what the winning score will be. Bethpage Black is a great course, whoever designed it. If the greens are soft and the wind does not blow, they will shoot -12 or better. If the greens are hard and the wind does blow, they will shoot -5 or worse. It will still be a great course, regardless, and will still produce a great champion. I believe that the better measure of the quality of a course is the quality of its leaderboards, rather than the score shot by the winner. If the winning score in this open is -14 or +4, should that change our opinion of the course's quality? If Kevin Sutherland beats Steve Lowery in a playoff, though, that would certainly give me pause. Any course can be USGA'd into difficulty, but that has no bearing on the design quality of the underlying golf course, yes?

[Mike_Cirba]

Jeff,

You are correct, sir.

Is The Old Course less worthy because Tiger Woods averaged a birdie every fourth hole in placid conditions?

I believe par should be protected in some abstact sense that there is adequate challenge provided (which a great design should be able to do), but course setups should encourage bold, creative, and risky play.  

[Jeff_Lewis]

I would use Carnoustie as the ultimate proof of poor courses producing poor, or More Random, champions. Interesting that the Carnoustie experience proves that we can use course set-up to temporarily turn a phenomenal test into a bad one.

[A_Clay_Man]

Carnoustie's a poor course?

Poor?

Aren't we just alittle too critical?

After all, the test is relative to the participants on any given week. Therefore it could be played anywhere and it would be fair to all and realistic to the rest of us.

[Jeff_Lewis]

No, I said that Carnoustie is proof that set-up alone can turn a "phenomenal" test of golf into a poor one, and that the results of that Open confirm the hypothesis that poor tests yield random results.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Huckaby;

I'm not sure how it matters if Bethpage Black is a public course or not.  It's been generally regarded as a superb, difficult test of golf no matter its pedigree.  Did Tiger's destruction of Pebble's par denigrate that course in any way?

But let's examine your premise for a moment.  Since the Black is known as such a fierce test of golf, might not a winning total of -15 or so shine new light on what is THE issue of our times as far as design...the distance the ball has been permitted to travel under present USGA restrictions.  

On the other hand, growing the rough to wrist-breaking length and thickness, narrowing the fairways to 26 yards, and extending the tees to Torrey Pinesian length, while shaving the greens to their last breath to "protect par" (when it works) only provides the USGA with the illusion that there is not a real problem out there.

It also feeds into the belief that this kind of penal course is what is best for course architecture.  I don't want to start the discussion again about the GROWING trend towards penal, very difficult golf courses being built, but just played another 145 sloper this past weekend.

The USGA in effect is saying, this is what we think a golf course SHOULD be to provide a test of golf.  

Then we wonder why we so often get the Andy North's in the winner's circle.    

[Dan Kelly]

Tom IV --

Hate to disagree, but disagree I must:

You write: "This is a special event, VERY special to public course players."

I'm a public-course player, and this US Open is not one bit more special to me than any other US Open.

This is a sincere question, not a flip remark: Why should it be special to me?

I agree wholeheartedly with Mike Cirba's statement: "I believe par should be protected in some abstact sense that there is adequate challenge provided (which a great design should be able to do), but course setups should encourage bold, creative, and risky play."

No one wants to see the US Open be the Bob Hope Desert Classic -- but would it really bother ANYONE if a couple of great players (assuming there ARE a couple of great players, and not just one) shot 10 under par?

Hey, Gil Morgan had it to 10-under, didn't he, at Pebble, before the winds came up? No one suggested that Pebble was an inadequate setting for an Open.  Nor should they have.

[Dan Kelly]

Tom IV --

Again, a sincere question that sounds like a flip remark:

Why should I care what "the bluebloods" think of Bethpage
Black specifically or municipal golf courses in general?

Another way of putting it:

What difference to the future of (a) golf or (b) "public course golfers" is Bethpage Black's performance in this Open going to make?

Enlighten me.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

What I'd want to see, and which is unlikely to happen under the USGA course setup, is a GREAT tournament...one for the ages...with creative, ballsy shotmaking, a shifting leaderboard, a late charge, a down to the wire finish, and something that will let the world see that a "muni" can provide that kind of excitement and high drama.

Whether the final score of that pitched battle is -15 or +2 is not very concerning to me, nor truly reflective of the merits of the golf course.  

Because, let's face it.  I can't imagine the USGA saying "well...guess we can't use a muni anymore" when they've already admitted the course...or any course really, is not adequate for the test they feel is necessary when they feel compelled to do their "standard" setup most years.

Do you think they'll go back to Pebble after Tiger demolished it?

[Dan Kelly]

Tom IV --

OK. I give up. I'll call it a weakness.  

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom & Dan,

Don't get me wrong.  I love to root for underdogs too, and part of me is hoping that Bethpage Black kicks their butts.

However, I think we might be viewing this too narrow-mindedly if we simply view it as some kind of class warfare, or working-class justification.  To characterize the USGA as some well-heeled, upper-crust organization (blueblood?) in an ivory tower and throwing some bone to public golf is really not an accurate assessment, and ultimately probably a disservice to the fact that it includes more public course golfers than private ones among its members, as well as the many wonderful people who serve the organization.  
 
I believe the bottom line is that the game will continue to become more public over time, irrespective of what any of us say here, or how well Bethpage holds up.  The growth, or even the maintainability of the game requires more people playing it from groups who haven't historically played much golf, in places like inner cities.  The future demographics will ultimately determine things. 

[THuckaby2]

Dan Kelly and Mike Cirba:

As you see, I went in and removed my previous messages.  Apologies to Jeff Lewis for making his very valid question into a non-sensical thread a bit here, but I was way off on what I was truly trying to say so I'm gonna leave it alone.

You guys make very good points.

Here's hoping a great tournament occurs at Bethpage, however one defines "great."

TH

[Craig Van Egmond]

As a public golfer, I could really care less that Bethpage is a public course, its just nice to see them play someplace different for a change.

I can't wait to watch it and I hope it provides a stern test and someone steps up to the plate and gives Tiger a run for the title. I don't care what the final score is either.

Should I?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

So now Dan and I end up looking as though we are debating with a "phantom" Tom Huckaby??

People here already think we're crazy!  

I have an idea...let's go play this weekend and have a beer afterwards and we'll discuss it then.  Deal?  

[THuckaby2]

Well Mike, at least I gave some sort of an explanatory post!

But you know what, that sounds like one hell of an idea.  Let's meet about halfway across the country for each of us.  

TH

[Dan Kelly]

Mike --

Sure thing. Where are we playing?  Ha, ha.  

[Rick Shefchik]

Tom --

I get what you're saying. You ride around town in a Toyota Corolla (actually, that's what I ride around town in) while  BMWs, Mercedes and Lexuses (Lexi?) cruise past you with, at best, indifference, and at worst, disdain. One day a year all these cars meet in a race televised around the world, and though you know it doesn't really prove anything, you'd like to see the Toyota win, if just once.

I'm a public golfer, too. I know there are those private club members (not on this site, obviously) who might treat my course with, at best, indifference, and at worst, disdain.

But I can't convince myself that what happens at Bethpage Black is going to change that. Those inclined to think there's something rather pathetic about having to hand cash or a credit card to the guy in the golf shop each time you play aren't going to think otherwise if Skip Kendall wins this year's open at -17. And those who think there's no such thing as a municipal course that deserves mention in the same breath with a great private, classic course will not have their minds changed if Tiger Woods wins this year's Open at +2.

I really believe that an exciting, competitive tournament will be far better for muni golf's image than an artificially constricted torture chamber of a golf course that forces the pros to tee off with 2-irons all week.

From all accounts, Bethpage Black is a tough golf course. Let it stand on its merits, and be played as it was meant to be played. Anyone who finds fault with that -- and by extension, any other muni course -- is too thick-headed to worry about.

Rick

[Dan Kelly]

Hell, Rick, my Honda Civic cruises past you with, at best, indifference and, at worst, disdain!  

The way I see it, the Civic is the Bethpage Black of compact economy cars. The Corollas -- and all of the others -- are mere Torrey Pines. You can quote me on that.

So long as there's some tough rough, some fast greens, and a wee bit o' wind, Bethpage Black will fare just fine. Or my name isn't Joseph Burbeck.

[A_Clay_Man]

Jeff - As you can probably tell I have difficulty in understanding alot of things, But could you please tell me what is wrong with random results?

Are you saying Paul Lawrie wasn't deserving of the Claret Jug because of course setup?

I really don't mean to be a thingyhole, I just don't see how set-up is fundemental to the quality of the champion.

[Mark_Fine]

Does scoring matter is the question?  What standard other than scoring would the you recommend to judge these players?  We all know what can happen in match play (regardless of the venue).  Is that a better standard?

If Corey Pavin can play the coolest golf shots, should he be declared the winner?  Who is the favorite at this U.S. Open outside of Tiger?  We all know that most anyone can win at any given time these days (regardless of the venue).  

I hope The Black proves to be a great test.  At the end of the day, however, as Jeff says, course set-up/conditions will play a huge role in the final score.  

Remember there is (or at least can be) a difference between a great test of golf and great golf course.  We've been through this before  
Mark

[JakaB]

Sorry people but the score does matter...it mattered at Pinehurst and it matters here...Pinehurst got firm conditions, a high score and perfectly dead champion resulting in another Open in 2005.   The USGA was scared to death that rains would set in and not allow #2 to show its design strengths and sadly there are more golfers in the world that matter than the 75 freaks that frequent this site on a regular basis...and its the nonfreako's that tune in, make reservations and pay the bills.   The score and the champion at Pinehurst was worth additional millions in many peoples coffers...they don't build statues to chumps baby.

[Dan Kelly]

JakaB --

OK, granted: Score does matter to the USGA.

Now, for the real question: Should it matter? To the USGA? To NBC? To the 75 freaks of GCA.com? To the players? To the so-called general public?

[Mark_Fine]

Let's not confuse "scoring" with "par".  Par might not matter as much but scoring DOES matter to ALL golfers regardless of what might be said.  One of the reasons ALL golfers play golf is to see how they can score.  

If you're 175 yards from the green, no golfer takes out his/her 60 degree wedge and plays a flop shot just because it's fun and to see if they can hit it!  They play a shot that will get the ball in the hole in the fewest stokes possible!  Why, because score does matter!  It matters in competitions and it matters in friendly games with your buddies on the weekend!

[JakaB]

Dan,

Should the size of your wifes ass matter...how fast your son can run...the twinkle in your daughters eye...its petty but yes I think the "score" of our achievements and choices need to matter.  If you don't think you love a beautiful wife or an athletic son just a little bit more then you are more dead inside than I am shallow.  I love the realities of lust and covetness...the purity of jealousy...the qualms of a short penised fat boy as he curses the effects of middle age.  Some courses and men are greater than others and we need more than just subjective opinion in determining who are the Kings or the Surfs.  In the world of golf...score has to be a factor...it accumulates with every swing...every putt...every failure...every save....its just one factor like a wife, children, job or slongdom measures a man...but it helps cause its true and often to the point it hurts.

[Bruceski]

Yes, scoring matters in pro golf. But the question is too simple. I like to use the analogy to (American) football. A great football game can end up with a final score of 38-35, or 10-7. Both games decided by a 2-minute drill drive ending in a 50 yd field goal. Most fans will enjoy either game.

Point? It's what led up to the final score that determines the quality of the entertainment.

That said, in my opinion, great golf courses are an equal participant in a golf tournament, especially in a major. We like to see them "fight back" and challenge the great players of the game. If Tiger and Phil are steamrolling the Black to double-digit under par numbers come Sunday, I will feel disappointed. It just wouldn't seem right if a player can shoot four rounds below 68 on a 7,250 yd golf course. Nobody could honestly deny that fact.