Ogilvy on course setup...

[Garland Bayley]

Sean

As you know I am not a fan of heavy rough and never have been.  All I'm trying to do in this thread is expose the irony of certain purists seeming to enjoy and even advocate randomness and unfairness in golf, except when it affects them directly.  As much as  I hate heavy rough, particularly around the green, I am man enough to recognise that playing out of it is a distinct and very high-level skill (which I do not have).  I would suggest to Ogilvy (and others) who have the same problem (relatively, at least) to follow the Gary Player/Isacc Stern dictum of "PRACTICE!"

Rich

From kingsputter.com
Match 1
D. Ober/L. Duran    6&5
J. Wall/R. Goodale

Match 3
Duran/McBride    3&1
Goodale/Pitock

Rihc advising Geoff to practice. That's rich!
 

[Garland Bayley]

Rich,

Which part of
"So if your greens are not good enough to defend themselves without six inches of rough, then the greens aren't good enough. You don't need six-inch rough at Augusta, or at Oakmont, although they grow it. You don't need it at Pinehurst, or Royal Melbourne, or Shinnecock Hills. And if you don't have greens like that, then just let the guys make birdies."
sounds like Joshua Crane, but not like Dr. Mac?
Or maybe you think Royal Melbourne and Augusta were done by Joshua Crane and his buddy AWT.

Behr

"…when one attempts a great carry, or to direct one’s ball adjacent to danger to reap an advantage, one cannot anticipate what the result of one’s efforts to be. There is suspense during the period one is making up one’s mind just how much to go out for. There is suspense during the flight of the ball; and suspense ends only when it comes to rest… And if one is playing upon links land, the nature of the [ball's] lie is also a mystery. And then again a decision must be made."

Mackenzie

"11.  The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play."

 Both Behr and Mackenzie seem to relish unfairness and the effect of it on the better golfer.  Crane and Ogilvy, on the other hand ask that anything unfair (whether it be 6 inch greenside rough or water hazards) be cryit doon.

That's all fine and good Rich, but conveniently ignores the fact that we are discussing 6 inch rough surrounding the greens so that it is better to get in the bunker than to get in the rough. In all likely hood, AM, MB, JC, and AWT would all be aghast a such a thought.

You have your opinions, and I have mine. Time to let the readership decide for themselves.

Ciao

[Jeff Goldman]

"The more severe, the more strategic it becomes.
The less severe, the more meaningless it becomes.

Severe bunkers cause golfers to think, plan and avoid them when possible.
They FACTOR into the mental side of the game, the strategy and play of the hole."

Not necessarily.  I continue to believe that variety is a key element and if the bunkers are just pitch-outs, something is lost.  A bunker can be so severe that no player will take the risk of playing near it.  Sometimes a less severe bunker can be more strategic, not only by encouraging aggressive play to challenge the bunker -- because the bunker is seen as not penal, but also encourage aggressive play out of the bunker for the same reason -- it appears an easy shot.  This is sometimes referred to as "enticing the player to do something dumb."

[Sean_A]

"The more severe, the more strategic it becomes.
The less severe, the more meaningless it becomes.

Severe bunkers cause golfers to think, plan and avoid them when possible.
They FACTOR into the mental side of the game, the strategy and play of the hole."

Not necessarily.  I continue to believe that variety is a key element and if the bunkers are just pitch-outs, something is lost.  A bunker can be so severe that no player will take the risk of playing near it.  Sometimes a less severe bunker can be more strategic, not only by encouraging aggressive play to challenge the bunker -- because the bunker is seen as not penal, but also encourage aggressive play out of the bunker for the same reason -- it appears an easy shot.  This is sometimes referred to as "enticing the player to do something dumb."

Jeff

I disagree with you.  Bunkers should be severe, but perhaps not nearly so prevalent.  It should be rare thing indeed for a course to have, say, 50 or more bunkers on it. 

Ciao

[Forrest Richardson]

Patrick — Raising the area fronting a bunker ("fronting bern", although I will never admit to including this in ON COURSE, the dictionary of golf course terms on our website...) is no way to deepen a bunker because the deepening occurs AFTER the impact of the "fronting berm." Now, visually, yes...that make the bunker appear deeper.

A raised area fronting a bunker also has the effect/affect of lessening a ball's momentum toward the bunker itself.

Please read the three ways to build a bunker in that odd, but rare edition of a book about hazards...you will find that the option where material is excavated and piled behind the bunker is most efficient and also, I believe, the most "hazardous."

[Mike_Clayton]

'I would think the organizing bodies in the US and GB would be interested in hearing Geoff's opinion on course setup the same way you are interested in hearing his opinion as an affiliate of Golf Australia...it's just that I would think they would prefer to hear it somewhere other than on his blog or in the media.'

Jim.
I guess if they were interested they would ask him - and how would they really know if he had anything interesting to say if he wasn't out there saying it in the media?
No matter how convincing his arguments there is no way America is going to cut the long grass that surrounds greens  the way they do it in Australia and Britain - where they use hazards other than thick,wet,long grass.

[JESII]

Mike,

Maybe it's just me, but I respond better to criticism when the critic approaches me and discusses whatever the issue is.

If I were to create a forum (like organizing and hosting the PGA) and one of my guests chose to criticize me through public insults as opposed to mature conversation I would take that criticism with a grain of salt.

To be clear, I do not disagree with the idea, just wondering why he doesn't actually make an effort to move the needle.

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim,

I jusr re-read what Geoff said and I would not classify it as a 'public insult'. An American might - and Geoff would be the first to acknowledge that foreigners have to be aware of the sensabilities of the locals - but an Australian would see what he said as simply calling it the way he sees it.'

Peter Lonard was once asked what was the difference between Americans and Australians and he got pretty close to the reality when he said ' we don't get our knickers in a twist of someone calls us an a..hole'

I think Geoff has made a lot of effort to move the needle with his public pronouncements.He has never dodged a question on the equipment debate or the architecture debate and I think he has opinions worth listening to.Perhaps he does not get it right all the time  but who does?
At least he is prepared to comment as opposed to Tiger who has conspicuously avoided all debate about equipment and course set-up.
That is not a criticism of Tiger because I am sure he couldn't be bothered dealin with the controvesy he would create.

[JESII]

"It's probably the least likely place where we play where they could ruin the setup,"


Mike,

The above quote (attributed to GO) was pulled from the article linked to the opening post or two on this thread when asked about the next PGA site, an din the context of this years setup.

I would be surprised if I came over for the Australian Amatuer (a goal at some point) and made the above comment in the interview room and it didn't twist up several pairs of knickers.

For what it's worth, I'll repeat that I think he is pretty much dead on and would like to see him find a way to convince the organizers over here of the merits of his ideas...just answering the same old questions the same old way doesn't seem like the best way, but who knows maybe there is no best way.

[Mike_Clayton]

Jim

Agree about the Australian Amateur analogy - but he has been there for ten years and is a major champion- and the game has always elicited passionate comment from people who care about it.

Remember Geoff grew up over the back fence from Royal Melbourne and learned all his golf on the sandbelt - where courses are set-up exactly the opposite as they are in America.The fairways are wide, there is no thick green grass boardering fairways or greens, the greens are firm and the wind is ever-present.
It is a brilliant form of the game - and I suspect Geoff wonders why they don't try that course organization once in a while - instead of the exact opposite - narrow fairways,long grass along fairways and around greens,softer greens and often very little wind.

I understand I maybe preaching to the converted - but it is more than likely that Whistling Straits is the place most likely to come close to the golf he enjoys in Melbourne.

[Mark_F]

The fairways are wide, there is no thick green grass boardering fairways or greens

That's being a little bit disingenuous isn't it, Mike?  There's no shortage of scrubby heath/rough on many holes at RM, KH, Woodlands, Metro and Peninsula North.

[Mike_Clayton]

Mark,

I did not say 'scrubby heath/rough' Mostly that stuff is pretty playable - unpredictable - but playable and it demands more than a mindless hack out.
I said 'thick,green grass' and there is almost not thick green grass on any of those courses.
I can't remember the last time I gouged a shot out of thick green grass on the sandbelt.

[Anthony Butler]

Peter Lonard was once asked what was the difference between Americans and Australians and he got pretty close to the reality when he said ' we don't get our knickers in a twist of someone calls us an a..hole'

At least he is prepared to comment as opposed to Tiger who has conspicuously avoided all debate about equipment and course set-up.
That is not a criticism of Tiger because I am sure he couldn't be bothered dealin with the controvesy he would create.

I don't think Australians are quite as thick-skinned as they pretend to be... I know many of them that harbor grudges over decades on various issues. They simply pretend not to be bothered.

No question Tiger is aware the controversy of him specifically criticising the set-up of a major would likely force him to answer questions he'd rather not deal with during the week. I also believe that he thinks the correct mind-set is to play the course as he finds it.  Nicklaus used to say he enjoyed a tough set-up at the majors, bordering on unfair, because it a eliminated at least 1/2 the field.

Based on the various Twitter postings of some competitors at Hazeltine, I think that number might have been even higher last week.