[David_Tepper]

Article in 2/24/10 SF Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/24/SPTB1C6OVR.DTL

[Alex Miller]

On one hand it makes sense in terms of playing distances, on the other.....

NOOOOO!!! Baltusrol West!

[Patrick Hodgdon]

I've personally really liked Mike Davis' Open set-ups especially Torrey for the Tiger-Rocco duel (although a draw favored playoff hole would have been nice for Rocco ) and I also liked seeing how he setup Interlachen for the '08 Women's Open as well.

I'd be curious what some of the architects think in terms of him moving the tees around and what not. As an architect would you get mad that on say one of the 4 tournament days the best men in the world played from a ladies tee on a hole you designed?

[Tim Nugent]

Patrick, I guess that depends on who the course was designed for (members or pros) and whether the equipment in use rendered the design strategies moot.
Personally, I would rather see them not adultrate the course for a once-in-a-millenium pro event that subjects the members to years of agony.  I like the change of par as it only requires new scorecards to be printed.  I was popndering this when I read the Interlachen thread and thought, hell -it's a 6,729 yd par 73, want to "make it play harder? Don't add length, change the par.  The USGA's been doing this for years at clubs. Par 72's become par 70's for championships.
To me it has less to do with protecting par and more with creating a challenging venue that requires the pros to think and play as many different types of shots  as possible.  Driver, 9-iron on "Par 5's" just reduces the validity of Par.  If it plays like a 4, than it is a 4, regardless of wht it's ground length is or what the scorecard says.

[JLahrman]

David, are they planning on moving the tees up on #1?  Apart from the moving the tee box left on 17, it almost sounds like they're just flipping the pars of holes 1 & 17 without really changing anything else about them.

[Tom Huckaby]

Reading the article, it sure seems to me that no big changes are being done on 1 and 17 (though David or other OClub members can confirm)... they're just going to play an up tee on 1, making it a doable long par 4 (which hell, it is from the back tee for these guys anyway in effect as they all can pretty easily reach it in two).. the way I read it they're just gonna move it up to 500 or slightly less so it doesn't look that weird calling it a par 4.  Then on 17, as the article says, they're making a new tee at 505, slightly left of existing tees... and they're gonna call that a par 5.  It's just messing with their heads anyway... any pro with a brain is going to expect a total of 9 shots on the two holes, it's only the fools who let Mike Davis tell them to expect 8 (figuring that since 17 is a short par 5, they must make "birdie") who are gonna have any issues.  We'll see how many that is.

In any case, I love messing with their heads like this... so assuming it's not a massive big deal making that new tee on 17, I say good on you Mike Davis - go get 'em.

[Carl Nichols]

Tom:
That was my reaction as well. 

Is the right side of the 17th green normally "shaved," or will that be a change for the Open?  I don't remember it being that way the 2 times I've been out there.

[Mike Benham]

I suspect that they will push up the tee box on #1, perhaps the 30+ yards suggested by Tom, which will allow for one of those massive grandstands to be built on the back half of the tee box.  If I recall, in prior Opens, there were no grandstands around the first tee as at most other venues.

Pushing the tee forward will actually make the drive a bit more challenging for the long hitters, bringing the dogleg that much closer.  I suspect that many will hit a 3 wood.  From the front tee box and under firm conditions, the long hitters will be able to get a turbo boost kick at the beginning of the downhill portion of the fairway.

The article is incorrect, holes #1 and #17 run in the same direction, so it is difficult to assume that 17 is "into the wind" and 1 is "downwind".  The green of #1 is quite exposed from winds from NNW and you typically don't feel the breeze on your approach shot.

The area right of #17 is not normal shaved, usually thick rough.  The green slopes sneakily hard in the front right quadrant and if the hole is located there, and with a shaved bank, it is possible that some putts could roll off the green.

 

[Jim Nugent]

With F&F conditions, the pros had a heck of a time keeping their tee shots in the fairway on #17.  I haven't seen the course since 1994.  But going on memory, won't moving the tee further left make it even harder to hold the fairway?  Seems like the fairway will slope even harder away from them.   

[Bill_McBride]

With F&F conditions, the pros had a heck of a time keeping their tee shots in the fairway on #17.  I haven't seen the course since 1994.  But going on memory, won't moving the tee further left make it even harder to hold the fairway?  Seems like the fairway will slope even harder away from them.   

Jim, I'm afraid that's probably the idea!

I think they should just build a tee on top of the pro shop and play #1 as a par 5!   

[David_Tepper]

I was not there and did not see it, but I have been told Jamie Lovemark hit driver & 9-iron to the 1st green on the Lake Course during the US Am in 2007. I find that very hard to believe (or even imagine ). If anyone can confirm (or deny) this story, please do so.

I do think Mike B. is correct in that moving the tee marker towards the front of the tee box on #1 will allow them to build a small grandstand behind the teeing area.

I can remember when (in the early 1980's) there was actually a small practice putting green between the 1st tee (it was smaller then) and the pro shop.

[Kevin_Reilly]

I was not there and did not see it, but I have been told Jamie Lovemark hit driver & 9-iron to the 1st green on the Lake Course during the US Am in 2007. I find that very hard to believe (or even imagine ). If anyone can confirm (or deny) this story, please do so.

That is easier to believe than hitting #17 with driver/8 iron...and I did see that with my own awestruck eyes.  John Hurley of Texas A&M in the qualifying rounds.

[Ron Csigo]

Does anyone know if #16 is reachable in two at its current length of 609 yards?  Just wondering if adding an additional 40 yards is actually necessary.  Would like to hear some of your thoughts.

[Kevin_Reilly]

The above-mentioned Hurley hit his 3-wood pin-high to the greenside rough on the right side.  Whether anyone could hold it on the green from that distance (he was 285 out) is hard to say. 

[David_Tepper]

Ron C. -

Not only would it take 2 long shots to reach #16 green in two, you would have to hit two nice nicely shaped draws to work the ball around the two doglegs on the hole.

As Kevin R. has noted above, you would have to hit your shot into the green awfully high to get it to hold the green, especially if that shot was hit with a draw. Being pin-high, right of the green leaves to difficult pitch over the bunker on the right side of the green.

It will be interesting to see what someone like Alvaro Quiros can do with the hole.

DT

[Ron Csigo]

David/Kevin,

Thank you both for your comments.  I can't wait to watch the pros tackle #16 in the US Open.  It will take two tremendously shaped shots to reach that green in two.  The tee shot alone is daunting through a narrow chute.  Then, the second shot, a high, sweeping draw.  Should be fun to watch.  Hopefully, the hole will play at 609 yards one day and 650 yards another day to see if they'll still go at it in two.

Ron.C 

[Kevin_Reilly]

Here is Jamie Lovemark at the US Am on the 16th tee.  I was standing behind the tee when he hit this...he aimed over the trees on the left and hit a high shot that had a touch of draw to it.  Hurley's shot was the same, but just about 25 yards longer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqoAbIcq9iU

[Kevin_Reilly]

Not only would it take 2 long shots to reach #16 green in two, you would have to hit two nice nicely shaped draws to work the ball around the two doglegs on the hole.

Hurley didn't have to worry about the tree line on the left with his second...he was so far down the fairway that his 3 wood shot went straight.

[Jeff Spittel]

I've always been able to hit the ball reasonably far, but I can't imagine hitting that green in two. The idea of hitting 17 with an 8 iron might be even more preposterous.

Maybe the heavy, damp air had something to do with it, but I thought OC Lake played longer than any course I've ever been to.

[Ron Csigo]

Not only would it take 2 long shots to reach #16 green in two, you would have to hit two nice nicely shaped draws to work the ball around the two doglegs on the hole.

Hurley didn't have to worry about the tree line on the left with his second...he was so far down the fairway that his 3 wood shot went straight.

That is just amazing!  Wow!

[JLahrman]

Whether or not the US Open contestants go for 16 in two might depend upon how the hole is set up around the green.  If the player can get it into the front right bunker in two, it might be worth the risk.  If the rough is super long, unless the player is sure he can get it into the bunker it might not be worth it.  So even at 609 going for it in two might not be the play.   You might have to attend the practice rounds to see the fun.  Of course, the US Open is still 2 years off and driving distance might be up to 430 by then...

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()