[Greg Tallman]

I'll go against the grain here and say it was a work of genius.

Nobody who needed to make birdie knew how to play the hole. We saw guys hit it as close to the green as they could, and fail. We saw guys try to lay back somewhat, but also fail.

I liked that in order to have a full shot, the players had to bring the bunkers into play or otherwise hit a 50 yard shot. The pros HATE that shot, because they can't spin it. The front pin just made it more diabolical.

Call me crazy, but I thought it was a great way to make a mundane hole somewhat interesting.

Is it really that different from, say, Olympic or Inverness' finishers?

Matt, Are you saying that Olympic offers the same "heck I'll just blow by the hole 40 feet so i can have a rather simple 2-putt" option? Interesting if that is your position.

I stand by the assertion that the pin placement negated ANY strategy from the tee as the end result was HIGHLY LIKELY to be a 20-40 foot putt from directly behind the hole. If that is genius then I am drastically under utilized in this bizarre world.

[Greg Tallman]

For the US Open winner, leading on the 18th tee, to execute a 6-iron/9-iron -- which Miller praised as the epitome of genius (??) -- was a huge letdown after some pretty exciting play that occured on the back nine. I give the USGA and Davis some credit for trying to make something interesting out of a pig's ear of a hole, but today's set-up wasn't it.

It was more about how Barnes, Mickelson, Duval played the hole while playing catch up.

It would have been more exciting it Glover had a one shot lead, granted.... but to have the best distance (110-130yds) to get close to the front hole location with a full wedge/sand wedge, you would have to place your tee shot right between the bunkers. Since that was the low point of the fairway, the USGA probably wanted to make that option as unappealing as possible. It must have worked, since I can't recall anyone having a full sandwedge into 18 in the last 4 groups.

Anthony:

Glover effectively did have a one-stroke lead at the end; Barnes was -2, and although it wasn't exactly a match-play situation, he had to assume Barnes would at least have a try at birdie, and he would need par to win. I'm sure Glover was thinking on the tee: What's the best, most assured way I can make par on this hole? I think his strategy was the correct one -- 6 iron/9-iron -- but to me, that's a pretty lame closing hole set-up. Compare it to the 18th at WFoot in '06, which produced much more compelling golf (including a terrific par by the eventual winner).

While we obviously are the only two fixated in the hole location as a big part of the problem I cannot relate to your "effectively one shot" lead comment. Heck your own supporting logic does not jive with the statement.

There is nothing about the thought process of "MAKE PAR AND I WIN... don't care what he does" that supports the effective one shot lead thought.

[PThomas]

I like Tim's idea of playing it from 310  ...if such a tee exists  , then we would have seen some real fireworks !

aloha

thats right, it wasnt short enough

today' setup was a big dud (i would inset a sleeping emoticon here if there was one)

[Phil McDade]

For the US Open winner, leading on the 18th tee, to execute a 6-iron/9-iron -- which Miller praised as the epitome of genius (??) -- was a huge letdown after some pretty exciting play that occured on the back nine. I give the USGA and Davis some credit for trying to make something interesting out of a pig's ear of a hole, but today's set-up wasn't it.

It was more about how Barnes, Mickelson, Duval played the hole while playing catch up.

It would have been more exciting it Glover had a one shot lead, granted.... but to have the best distance (110-130yds) to get close to the front hole location with a full wedge/sand wedge, you would have to place your tee shot right between the bunkers. Since that was the low point of the fairway, the USGA probably wanted to make that option as unappealing as possible. It must have worked, since I can't recall anyone having a full sandwedge into 18 in the last 4 groups.

Anthony:

Glover effectively did have a one-stroke lead at the end; Barnes was -2, and although it wasn't exactly a match-play situation, he had to assume Barnes would at least have a try at birdie, and he would need par to win. I'm sure Glover was thinking on the tee: What's the best, most assured way I can make par on this hole? I think his strategy was the correct one -- 6 iron/9-iron -- but to me, that's a pretty lame closing hole set-up. Compare it to the 18th at WFoot in '06, which produced much more compelling golf (including a terrific par by the eventual winner).

While we obviously are the only two fixated in the hole location as a big part of the problem I cannot relate to your "effectively one shot" lead comment. Heck your own supporting logic does not jive with the statement.

There is nothing about the thought process of "MAKE PAR AND I WIN... don't care what he does" that supports the effective one shot lead thought.

Greg:

Walk with me on this......

Glover's on the 18th tee at -4; Barnes is standing next to him at -2. Both players I'm sure know what's going on ahead of them -- everyone else is in, and only Duval can get to -3 (I'm not sure if Duval putted on 18 before the final pair teed off on 18, but that's irrelevant to my argument). Glover surely knows that Barnes is thinking birdie, because he's two down and standing next to the guy who's two up on him! So if you're Glover, and you absolutely know that the best Duval can do is -3, and the best Barnes can do is -3, what do you do? If I were him, I'd say: "What's the best way I can attack this hole to give myself the highest odds of making par, because par wins?" No matter what anyone else does, par wins for Glover. He has absolutely no need to take the risk needed for a birdie. Yet birdie by Barnes was a reasonable thing for Glover to assume could happen -- it's a 354-yard hole in soft conditions with an easy green! So how do you protect your -4 score in the face of the possibility of -3 being achieved (but no lower than -3)? You take out a 6-iron.

[Greg Tallman]

For the US Open winner, leading on the 18th tee, to execute a 6-iron/9-iron -- which Miller praised as the epitome of genius (??) -- was a huge letdown after some pretty exciting play that occured on the back nine. I give the USGA and Davis some credit for trying to make something interesting out of a pig's ear of a hole, but today's set-up wasn't it.

It was more about how Barnes, Mickelson, Duval played the hole while playing catch up.

It would have been more exciting it Glover had a one shot lead, granted.... but to have the best distance (110-130yds) to get close to the front hole location with a full wedge/sand wedge, you would have to place your tee shot right between the bunkers. Since that was the low point of the fairway, the USGA probably wanted to make that option as unappealing as possible. It must have worked, since I can't recall anyone having a full sandwedge into 18 in the last 4 groups.

Anthony:

Glover effectively did have a one-stroke lead at the end; Barnes was -2, and although it wasn't exactly a match-play situation, he had to assume Barnes would at least have a try at birdie, and he would need par to win. I'm sure Glover was thinking on the tee: What's the best, most assured way I can make par on this hole? I think his strategy was the correct one -- 6 iron/9-iron -- but to me, that's a pretty lame closing hole set-up. Compare it to the 18th at WFoot in '06, which produced much more compelling golf (including a terrific par by the eventual winner).

While we obviously are the only two fixated in the hole location as a big part of the problem I cannot relate to your "effectively one shot" lead comment. Heck your own supporting logic does not jive with the statement.

There is nothing about the thought process of "MAKE PAR AND I WIN... don't care what he does" that supports the effective one shot lead thought.

Greg:

Walk with me on this......

Glover's on the 18th tee at -4; Barnes is standing next to him at -2. Both players I'm sure know what's going on ahead of them -- everyone else is in, and only Duval can get to -3 (I'm not sure if Duval putted on 18 before the final pair teed off on 18, but that's irrelevant to my argument). Glover surely knows that Barnes is thinking birdie, because he's two down and standing next to the guy who's two up on him! So if you're Glover, and you absolutely know that the best Duval can do is -3, and the best Barnes can do is -3, what do you do? If I were him, I'd say: "What's the best way I can attack this hole to give myself the highest odds of making par, because par wins?" No matter what anyone else does, par wins for Glover. He has absolutely no need to take the risk needed for a birdie. Yet birdie by Barnes was a reasonable thing for Glover to assume could happen -- it's a 354-yard hole in soft conditions with an easy green! So how do you protect your -4 score in the face of the possibility of -3 being achieved (but no lower than -3)? You take out a 6-iron.

Phil, If I have a one shot lead, par opens the door, if I have a two shot lead, par closes the door (for all intents and purposes). That simple for me.

[Carl Nichols]

So how do you protect your -4 score in the face of the possibility of -3 being achieved (but no lower than -3)? You take out a 6-iron.

And that's the very problem with the setup -- needing a par to assure victory, a good play was to hit 6-iron off the tee on the 18th hole of the U.S. Open. 

[Phil McDade]

Greg:

Par opens the door for who, exactly? Was there someone playing behind Glover/Barnes that we didn't know about? One of these guys making eagle from the fairway? C'mon -- that's laughable. NO ONE ELSE COULD GET TO -4! PAR WINS!

[Anthony Butler]

Bill:

Van de Velde had a three-stroke lead on the 18th tee at Carnoustie, not two shots (effectively one shot for Glover, given that he was playing with the only guy on the course who could get to -3), and was facing a much longer hole than Glover -- one more than 100 yards longer than what Glover faced. And, in his defense, vdV argued he had hit driver there all previous holes, and had been hitting his driver well the entire day. He also caught perhaps the worse break in modern major history when his second shot didn't stay in the grandstand, but bounced out. Still, he did play the hole with little thought for how much danger there is on that hole.

Effectively a one shot lead? Some kind of fuzzy math here. -4/-2 is two shots according to my calculations.

Effectively a one-shot lead would only apply if Barnes stiffed his approach on 18 and Glover had to make a par to win.

[mike_malone]

 The setup worked except for the situation that developed-----a 2 shot lead on a 354 yard hole.I wonder if they had thought of that possibility. I loved the fact that these guys couldn't get  sub100 yard shots close!

[Phil McDade]

Bill:

Van de Velde had a three-stroke lead on the 18th tee at Carnoustie, not two shots (effectively one shot for Glover, given that he was playing with the only guy on the course who could get to -3), and was facing a much longer hole than Glover -- one more than 100 yards longer than what Glover faced. And, in his defense, vdV argued he had hit driver there all previous holes, and had been hitting his driver well the entire day. He also caught perhaps the worse break in modern major history when his second shot didn't stay in the grandstand, but bounced out. Still, he did play the hole with little thought for how much danger there is on that hole.

Effectively a one shot lead? Some kind of fuzzy math here. -4/-2 is two shots according to my calculations.

Effectively a one-shot lead would only apply if Barnes stiffed his approach on 18 and Glover had to make a par to win.

Barnes doesn't have to stuff his approach. All he has to do is put a ball in the fairway, and then hit a wedge to a green that's not severely contoured. It's entirely reasonable for Glover to think on the 18th tee that Barnes would be going after a birdie, and I'd argue Glover's strategy on 18 should have been dictated (and I'd suggest, was...) by assuming Barnes finishes 18 at -3. That's, effectively, a one-stroke lead.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg:

Par opens the door for who, exactly? Was there someone playing behind Glover/Barnes that we didn't know about? One of these guys making eagle from the fairway? C'mon -- that's laughable. NO ONE ELSE COULD GET TO -4! PAR WINS!

MY COMMENT AS PREVIOUSLY POSTED IS BELOW:
Phil, If I have a one shot lead, par opens the door, if I have a two shot lead, par closes the door (for all intents and purposes). That simple for me.


You lost me further with this post... maybe I am just having a bad day.

Bad day or not there is no such thing as effectively a one shot lead with players on the same hole.

[Greg Tallman]

Phil,

One last approach and I will give up.

How many stroke swing was necessary in order for Barnes to catch Glover?

[PCCraig]

I think it was the perfect summary for this US Open. Lots of build-up and excitement over what is to be, but in the end it was just a big sloppy mess/snooze.

Other than the rain, this was the most uneventful and unmemorable Open that I can remember.

[Philippe Binette]

I thought the 18th today was stupid...

Isn't it what you want to see... the leader leading by 2 and hitting 6-iron, 9-iron to win the Open

When Miller said it was the opposite of Van de Velde,
well... there is a difference between 22 yards wide fairway and 489 yards and 354 yards of nothing

[George Pazin]

I'm repeating the point I raised on the other thread. It's curious to me that no one televised got it close on their approach. Could it be that a half wedge to an elevated green is a good challenge for the big boys? If I were a bettin' man, I'd bet that most on here would have said the pros would absolutely eat this hole up, particularly in soft conditions, yet they didn't. Why not?

[jeffwarne]

I'm repeating the point I raised on the other thread. It's curious to me that no one televised got it close on their approach. Could it be that a half wedge to an elevated green is a good challenge for the big boys? If I were a bettin' man, I'd bet that most on here would have said the pros would absolutely eat this hole up, particularly in soft conditions, yet they didn't. Why not?

George,
I'll go a step farther.
With the current fad of driveable par 4's, you rarely see a 360-390 hole built on purpose from the back tees

[George Pazin]

I'm repeating the point I raised on the other thread. It's curious to me that no one televised got it close on their approach. Could it be that a half wedge to an elevated green is a good challenge for the big boys? If I were a bettin' man, I'd bet that most on here would have said the pros would absolutely eat this hole up, particularly in soft conditions, yet they didn't. Why not?

George,
I'll go a step farther.
With the current fad of driveable par 4's, you rarely see a 360-390 hole built on purpose from the back tees

I agree, and I think we're poorer as a result. Somehow a 354 yard hole that isn't a birdie hole is lacking or goofy, while a 470 yard hole that doesn't is stout, demanding, relentless, take your pick.

I love the 2nd at Oakmont, a short par 4 that few consider driving, yet everyone loves a par.

[Greg Tallman]

I'm repeating the point I raised on the other thread. It's curious to me that no one televised got it close on their approach. Could it be that a half wedge to an elevated green is a good challenge for the big boys? If I were a bettin' man, I'd bet that most on here would have said the pros would absolutely eat this hole up, particularly in soft conditions, yet they didn't. Why not?

George,
I'll go a step farther.
With the current fad of driveable par 4's, you rarely see a 360-390 hole built on purpose from the back tees

I agree, and I think we're poorer as a result. Somehow a 354 yard hole that isn't a birdie hole is lacking or goofy, while a 470 yard hole that doesn't is stout, demanding, relentless, take your pick.

I love the 2nd at Oakmont, a short par 4 that few consider driving, yet everyone loves a par.

Any hole that allows an UNCHALLENGED 6-iron/9iron strategy is at least somewhat lacking don't you think? Heck at least from 411 most of these guys are challenged by either gearing down a wood or perhpas stretching a longer iron. Something, anything that makes the guy on the tee do something more than punt.

[Matthew Rose]

Matt, Are you saying that Olympic offers the same "heck I'll just blow by the hole 40 feet so i can have a rather simple 2-putt" option? Interesting if that is your position.

I stand by the assertion that the pin placement negated ANY strategy from the tee as the end result was HIGHLY LIKELY to be a 20-40 foot putt from directly behind the hole. If that is genius then I am drastically under utilized in this bizarre world.

No, I don't think so, although the point I wanted to make was that that hole is 350 yards with a similar sort of uphill approach, and everyone seems to think it works fine as a closer. I realize the holes aren't exactly the same.

I don't agree that the pin placement negated strategy at all.... the hole at 411 is a layup off the tee anyway. The setup today forces them to either hit driver, or hit a precise layup between the bunkers if they want their ideal yardage. Seems to me like there is some degree of strategy in that... at least more than just watching everyone lay well back all day and hit the same approaches. I think the front pin enhances this decision by making that 50 yard shot that much harder.

Maybe that's not a popular opinion, but I am not troubled at all by the way the hole was set up.

[Jaeger Kovich]

For all those 18 haters out there... I'm not a huge fan either... However, I thought today's pin was 2nd best on 18 all week. The best being back right.

Today there was a pretty stiff wind from dead behind the players on 18. That is the reason Glover hit only 6-9irons on the hole. Personally I think he was the only person who played it correct today, even for those like, Phil, Tiger, Duval, Barnes and Fisher, who hit driver. Instead of having a flat, slightly soggy, lie in the fairway with a full short iron in, which most of them could hit with their eyes closed and one handed, all those guys gave themselves partial pitch shots with zero room to work with.


I was sitting on 17 green, and as Phil was walking up, I yelled to Bones to break Phil's driver. Although he didn't have the lead this time, he could have easily Wing Footed that hole with the driver, and with his game 9 iron into a green probably leaves him within an almost certain close birdie putt... I just don't get that play.

[George Pazin]

Any hole that allows an UNCHALLENGED 6-iron/9iron strategy is at least somewhat lacking don't you think? Heck at least from 411 most of these guys are challenged by either gearing down a wood or perhpas stretching a longer iron. Something, anything that makes the guy on the tee do something more than punt.

Interesting question. If Barnes had holed his putt and Glover had lipped out, causing a playoff, would you feel the same?

Fine lines.

[Greg Tallman]

Matt, Are you saying that Olympic offers the same "heck I'll just blow by the hole 40 feet so i can have a rather simple 2-putt" option? Interesting if that is your position.

I stand by the assertion that the pin placement negated ANY strategy from the tee as the end result was HIGHLY LIKELY to be a 20-40 foot putt from directly behind the hole. If that is genius then I am drastically under utilized in this bizarre world.

No, I don't think so, although the point I wanted to make was that that hole is 350 yards with a similar sort of uphill approach, and everyone seems to think it works fine as a closer. I realize the holes aren't exactly the same.

I don't agree that the pin placement negated strategy at all.... the hole at 411 is a layup off the tee anyway. The setup today forces them to either hit driver, or hit a precise layup between the bunkers if they want their ideal yardage. Seems to me like there is some degree of strategy in that... at least more than just watching everyone lay well back all day and hit the same approaches. I think the front pin enhances this decision by making that 50 yard shot that much harder.

Maybe that's not a popular opinion, but I am not troubled at all by the way the hole was set up.

My point was that the green at Olympic offers far more possible scenarios than 18 at BPB. Now if it had been dr and the greens like lighning perhpas that would have been a terribly treacherous putt from 40 feet but as it were this was not the case.

Here is the problem, and I am amazed that nobody on THIS site has pointed this out. The hole is not DESIGNED to play from that yardage. If it had been then perhaps the lay up would be made very tough with severe penalties but it can only be assumed the bunkering and fairway width was designed in a manner to make the hole effectively play 60 yards or so longer than the 411 scoreacrd yardage. WHY? So the players have a similar length shot they have been facing on the other holes that play 460-470 but encourage the driver from the tee? Don't get that either.

Not many holes are going to be able to play from such different yardages and work from both. 18 may simply be the case of a hole that works from neither while 14 at Torrey presented a unique opportunity to play from the, ahem, "forward tees" and provide a comepletely different challnege and/or opportunity with NOBODY hitting a similar approach from the short tee as they had from the back tee.  

[Joe Hancock]

I was sitting on 17 green, and as Phil was walking up, I yelled to Bones to break Phil's driver.

Seriously?

[Greg Tallman]

Any hole that allows an UNCHALLENGED 6-iron/9iron strategy is at least somewhat lacking don't you think? Heck at least from 411 most of these guys are challenged by either gearing down a wood or perhpas stretching a longer iron. Something, anything that makes the guy on the tee do something more than punt.

Interesting question. If Barnes had holed his putt and Glover had lipped out, causing a playoff, would you feel the same?

Fine lines.

Fair enough, I believe the comments would be along the lines of how on earth does a guy choking on his own saliva all day gather the courage to birdie the last hole of the US Open while the leader gags, playing like a wimp, eschewing the driver and making bogey. Glover would be viewed as silly for his choice of play.


AND WRONGLY SO.

[Jaeger Kovich]

Joe - Absolutely! Also, on Friday afternoon when Bones handed Phil driver on 6 I made sure he heard my disagreement with that club selection as well... He was the only to hit driver on that hole in the at least 8 groups I saw.

I was so close on that shot on six, that my shadow was on Phil's ball and had to kneel so it wouldn't bother Phil. (Only time any player made me move)


As someone who loves to caddy, I would have never let my player hit driver on 18... esp Phil with his history

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()