[Ran Morrissett]

I was in the car for much of the day, coming back from northern Virginia with a new Morrissett family member (a clumber spaniel puppy  ). Hence, I missed the first eight holes though I did listen to the early play on ESPN radio until Curtis Strange wore me down and made me turn off the volume  .

Having seen the last ten holes on TV,  two questions come to mind:

1. Where were the easy hole locations? I personally like the notion of easy, medium and hard hole locations, making it incumbent on the golfer to know when to thrust and when to parry.

And conversely,

2. Are there supposed to be any easy hole locations on Sunday at a U.S. Open (or are moving tees forward supposed to act as a substitute? If so, it's a poor one. Pebble Beach isn't Torrey Pines and doesn't need the artificial excitement of forward tee locations to breath excitement into an event that it hosts.)?

Overnight, I was keyed up to watch what promised to be one of the most exciting day's of golf ever. Unknowns, mega-stars, great course, firm playing conditions (the green keeping staff did a SUPERB job of the area just before the greens, didn't they?!), all the key ingredients were in place with the wind always lurking with intent.

Instead, a slow motion wreck unfolded before our eyes with a lone survivor. Is that the way the USGA wants it? Maybe so. Is that good for the game? Maybe not. Did the course identify the best golfer like it always has in the past?

To me, all the hole locations were hard if not impossible to get to such as back right on seven, left on nine, front right on ten, anywhere on the stupid twelfth and seventeenth greens, back right on sixteen, etc. As a result, there were next to no birdies and the heriocs that had characterized the prior four US Opens here were sadly absent.  

Knowing going into Sunday's play that fourteen was going to be a disaster because the bank never should have been shaved down to begin with, why not throw the golfers a bone and give them a simple middle of the green location on fifteen, for instance? Ever golfer knows you can't miss long a Pebble so all those forward hole locations like at the fifteenth, and the first, thirteenth, eighteenth, etc. grew monotonous.

Where was the balance of hole locations? Or, is that a bad question: Should there even be a mix of hole locations on Sunday for our national open or do you just favor tough, tougher and impossible?

If you favor a mix, was this a poor set of Sunday hole locations? Perhaps the USGA shouldn't worry about making all the cute 1/2 par hole set-ups via forward tees and get back to good old fashioned course set-up basics and focus on a mix of hole locations?

What do you think?

Cheers,

[Mike Cirba]

Ran,

With all due respect to Graeme MacDowell's excellent conservative play, whatever happened out there today was a disaster.

I have never watched a more unsatisfying tournament with more possibility at the start of the fourth round.

Perhaps all the great players just went out to lunch today...I guess they could all collectively simultaneously hit the wall and crash and burn.

Still, something was very weird when not a single guy could make a putt...from virtually everywhere.

After hosting a great tournament at Torrey, followed by boring Bethpage last year and putrid Pebble this year, I'm thinking the USGA might have to refine their setup strategy.

[John Moore II]

Quote from John Vander Borght's blog:

Many people think that the hardest hole locations are saved for Sunday.  This isn’t true.  The USGA staff pick out their hole locations ahead of time and rate them from 1 through 4.  They they try to pick out a total that is pretty close to 45 (2.5 *18) for each day.

Today’s holes seemed pretty tough and very close to the edges (6 of the first 7 were only 3 paces from the edge, the other was 4).  But, they were also accessible for the proper shots, well, maybe not #3 which was brutally hard but very cool since they moved the tees up and gave them a short iron in.

I think it was a combination of some odd hole locations and greens that got too firm. I've said that for the past few hours, those greens simply got too hard, and when greens are running 13 and bumpy, not to mention the madly small size of those greens and crazy contours, it just got out of hand. Soften those greens just a fraction, run the greens at 10 instead of 13 and you have far less of the issues you saw today. 17 would be a fine green and shot if the green was just a little bit softer. There isn't a proper way to play that hole; they couldn't hole a 7 iron to that front pin yesterday any better than they held 3 woods to the back pins.

[Mike Cirba]

Well, John...at least they saved Old Man Par. 

Sheesh...what an outmoded concept that is..or should be.

[jeffwarne]

I was in the car for much of the day, coming back from northern Virginia with a new Morrissett family member (a clumber spaniel puppy  ). Hence, I missed the first eight holes though I did listen to the early play on ESPN radio until Curtis Strange wore me down and made me turn off the volume  .

Having seen the last ten holes on TV,  two questions come to mind:

1. Where were the easy hole locations? I personally like the notion of easy, medium and hard hole locations, making it incumbent on the golfer to know when to thrust and when to parry.

And conversely,

2. Are there supposed to be any easy hole locations on Sunday at a U.S. Open (or are moving tees forward supposed to act as a substitute? If so, it's a poor one. Pebble Beach isn't Torrey Pines and doesn't need the artificial excitement of forward tee locations to breath excitement into an event that it hosts.)?

Overnight, I was keyed up to watch what promised to be one of the most exciting day's of golf ever. Unknowns, mega-stars, great course, firm playing conditions (the green keeping staff did a SUPERB job of the area just before the greens, didn't they?!), all the key ingredients were in place with the wind always lurking with intent.

Instead, a slow motion wreck unfolded before our eyes with a lone survivor. Is that the way the USGA wants it? Maybe so. Is that good for the game? Maybe not. Did the course identify the best golfer like it always has in the past?

To me, all the hole locations were hard if not impossible to get to such as back right on seven, left on nine, front right on ten, anywhere on the stupid twelfth and seventeenth greens, back right on sixteen, etc. As a result, there were next to no birdies and the heriocs that had characterized the prior four US Opens here were sadly absent.  

Knowing going into Sunday's play that fourteen was going to be a disaster because the bank never should have been shaved down to begin with, why not throw the golfers a bone and give them a simple middle of the green location on fifteen, for instance?

Where was the balance of hole locations? Or, is that a bad question: Should there even be a mix of hole locations on Sunday for our national open or do you just favor tough, tougher and impossible?

If you favor a mix, was this a poor set of Sunday hole locations? Perhaps the USGA shouldn't worry about making all the cute 1/2 par hole set-ups via forward tees and get back to good old fashioned course set-up basics and focus on a mix of hole locations?

What do you think?

Cheers,

So if they simply played the course as presented to resort guests daily, what would be the consequences be?
If they played the Open at Shinnecock next week, or Bethpage tomorrow?
Would there be any consequences besides a bunch of USGA advance men being out of a job?
Because if they did it that way, when you were fortunate enough to play an Open venue, you could actually experience Open conditions

If they're really concerned about par, just let the gallery walk on the greens all week (or did they do that at Pebble?)

[John Moore II]

Well, John...at least they saved Old Man Par.  

Sheesh...what an outmoded concept that is..or should be.

You want to protect par without gimmicks, you'll have to find a way to keep guys from hitting driver-wedge into 500 yard holes. They were hitting short irons into 2, 9 and 10, and fairway metal/iron off the tee and then iron into the green on 6. With holes like that, you have to do something stupid to keep par relevant. Thats why you end up with stupidity like 7, 12, 14, and 17. I hate to say it, but with brick hard greens, 7 is foolish. That hole needs to be played as a 2 1/2 par hole. That hole has the wind and downhill, it doesn't need a concrete green.

Hold the US Open at RTJ-The Judge in Alabama, you know 7800 yards, Deep South in the Summer 95 degree temps with Heat Index of like 115. That will protect par. Fact of the matter is, without some stupid length added to courses, you're left with lame ass gimmicks in order to make par relevant.


The only reason courses of reasonable length work for the British Open is that probably 75% of the time, they get winds gusting to 30 mph. When they don't, you see -18 at St. Andrews by Tiger. But the R and A doesn't care.

[Mike Cirba]

John,

I agree, which is why I think that horse done left the barn back in the Ping days.

I used to ask the question, how long would the 18th hole at Merion have to be today for a modern Ben Hogan to hit driver, 2-iron into it as a closing hole and given the configuration of that property, the answer is probably about 580 yards. 

So, yes, the cat done escaped, and I guess I'm thinking that if you still try to protect par, the only way to do it is with something pretty contrived.

[RJ_Daley]

It seems to me that the guys in the last contending groups of about the last 4-5 pairings, played the same general condition of course.  The USGA sets it up the way they want, because it is their baby and their tradition and so they are entitled to do so.  Everyone knows how they will set it up.  If you as a player strongly object to their philosophy and set-up tradition, don't enter it.

I don't think the course really stole the championship from anyone today.  I think mental errors and botched tee shots and approaches played the biggest factor.  I mean, how can you blame set-up or turf conditions on the greens for D Johnson's collapse?  Ball striking to the best place on a green to two putt or get up and down from the correct surround area won, IMHO.

[Jason Topp]

The scoring average on Sunday was lower than Saturday which was one of the more exciting days of major golf in recent memory.  I just think the leaders played poorly.

[Mike Benham]

The scoring average on Sunday was lower than Saturday which was one of the more exciting days of major golf in recent memory.  I just think the leaders played poorly.

Jason - don't confuse facts with perception

It's pretty simple, a top ranked (aka "name") golfer did not win, nor did any of the them play very well ... If Phil had won, the unfairness would not be the topic, his stellar play over the difficult layout and grabbing the #1 ranking would be the story.

Quite frankly, the top ranked golfers played poorly and lost, they can't blame the course or the conditions ...

And all the BPs cry for firm and fast, get it and then call it unfair ... this set-up at Pebble for the Open happens once every 10 years or so, it doesn't play like this for the Crosby nor during a normal June, so the course should not be criticized as such ...

[RJ_Daley]

Phil said in his post newconference that the first 6 holes were great opportunities to make up ground, 'the way they were set up'.   If so, there are your balance of easier holes, Ran.  6 holes = 1/3 of the course...

If Phil is correct, maybe that plays into the set up designed to produce some fireworks.  Give the early holes the best chances for some birdies, via the set up.  Then turn up the heat... and see who is still standing at the end.

[Sean_A]

I was in the car for much of the day, coming back from northern Virginia with a new Morrissett family member (a clumber spaniel puppy  ). Hence, I missed the first eight holes though I did listen to the early play on ESPN radio until Curtis Strange wore me down and made me turn off the volume  .

Having seen the last ten holes on TV,  two questions come to mind:

1. Where were the easy hole locations? I personally like the notion of easy, medium and hard hole locations, making it incumbent on the golfer to know when to thrust and when to parry.

And conversely,

2. Are there supposed to be any easy hole locations on Sunday at a U.S. Open (or are moving tees forward supposed to act as a substitute? If so, it's a poor one. Pebble Beach isn't Torrey Pines and doesn't need the artificial excitement of forward tee locations to breath excitement into an event that it hosts.)?

Overnight, I was keyed up to watch what promised to be one of the most exciting day's of golf ever. Unknowns, mega-stars, great course, firm playing conditions (the green keeping staff did a SUPERB job of the area just before the greens, didn't they?!), all the key ingredients were in place with the wind always lurking with intent.

Instead, a slow motion wreck unfolded before our eyes with a lone survivor. Is that the way the USGA wants it? Maybe so. Is that good for the game? Maybe not. Did the course identify the best golfer like it always has in the past?

To me, all the hole locations were hard if not impossible to get to such as back right on seven, left on nine, front right on ten, anywhere on the stupid twelfth and seventeenth greens, back right on sixteen, etc. As a result, there were next to no birdies and the heriocs that had characterized the prior four US Opens here were sadly absent.  

Knowing going into Sunday's play that fourteen was going to be a disaster because the bank never should have been shaved down to begin with, why not throw the golfers a bone and give them a simple middle of the green location on fifteen, for instance? Ever golfer knows you can't miss long a Pebble so all those forward hole locations like at the fifteenth, and the first, thirteenth, eighteenth, etc. grew monotonous.

Where was the balance of hole locations? Or, is that a bad question: Should there even be a mix of hole locations on Sunday for our national open or do you just favor tough, tougher and impossible?

If you favor a mix, was this a poor set of Sunday hole locations? Perhaps the USGA shouldn't worry about making all the cute 1/2 par hole set-ups via forward tees and get back to good old fashioned course set-up basics and focus on a mix of hole locations?

What do you think?

Cheers,

Blah, blah, blah.  The leaders to a man played mediocre to poor golf.  Not one could say he played anyhwere near his best so it shouldn't be surprising there was no mad dash from the somewhat small group of players with a chance to win on Sunday.  We finally get the weather helping to create conditions which are difficult for the big boys and folks complain about it.  It is no wonder that American courses are so often shadows of what they could be.  Folks don't want to let weather do its job.  Instead, folks want top see the same course conditions day in and day out.  While I can certainly get behind the idea of not creating stupid speeds for greens, and maybe Pebble's were beyond an ideal speed, but ya gotta take the smooth with the rough and go from there.  My only beef would be if the rough made it unreasonable to kick balls in, but it seemed to e if guys were coming from the best angels of attack that this wan't an issue.

How many times are we gonna hear garbage about a course identifyng the best player and why does a nonsenical idea like this always centre around the US Open?  At some point folks have to face up to the fact that no matter the course, the US Open is usuallly very boring from spectator PoV - it ain't the Masters and never has been.

Ciao 

[Steve Kline]

The scoring average on Sunday was lower than Saturday which was one of the more exciting days of major golf in recent memory.  I just think the leaders played poorly.

Exactly. Course setup had nothing to do with Dustin Johnson's problems. Tiger's problems had nothing to do with course setup. He couldn't hit any good shots and he was leaving putts way short of the hole. Ernie folded like he often does when the heat gets turned up. Mickelson was his typical self - an amazing shot followed by a horrendous one or vice versa. The 391st ranked player in the world didn't seem to have too much problem with the course conditions. He played the best of anyone yesterday by far. Lots of fairways and lots of greens. I think all the big guys just wanted it so bad they absolutely blew it. The one I had a real problem with was 17. There was absolutely no way to hit that green.

And for many of you on here saying the course setup was too hard all three of the experts on TGC were complaining that setup was too easy (mostly for Saturday) - not enough long rough, too many easy pins, tees up too far, etc. I thought Saturday was very exciting and there were still only 3 players under par - that seems about right to me. Sunday was one of, if not the, most boring final rounds of a major I've ever seen.

[Tom_Doak]

The hole locations don't matter as much when guys are missing greens all over the place.

I did think it was sad not to see the flag in a more accessible spot on #18.

[John Moore II]

John,

I agree, which is why I think that horse done left the barn back in the Ping days.

I used to ask the question, how long would the 18th hole at Merion have to be today for a modern Ben Hogan to hit driver, 2-iron into it as a closing hole and given the configuration of that property, the answer is probably about 580 yards. 

So, yes, the cat done escaped, and I guess I'm thinking that if you still try to protect par, the only way to do it is with something pretty contrived.

Well, hadn't Hogan all ready played 35 holes that day? So that has something to do with why he hit Driver-2 iron. Otherwise, it might have been driver-5 iron. So, that makes it a 550 yard hole. Whatever. The simple fact is, without stupidity in set-up added to the mix, par won't be relevant on most courses. Tiger shot -1 at Torrey Pines and it was 7500 yards long with a good set-up. Bethpage was 7445 yards, but with the soft conditions, probably functionally played about 8000 yards, though with soft greens and the winning score was -4. Pebble was barely over 7000 max, and played less than that most days. 7000 yards is a pitch and putt course for guys in that event. People hate to admit it, but for a US Open, I think the minimum yardage needs to be about 7500 yards in all but the most exceptional cases (i.e. Oakmont and Winged Foot).

[Jerry Kluger]

Pebble is known for its small greens so when they are really firm they become zero greens.  I really enjoy brilliant recovery shots but the greatest players in the world could not come up with great recovery shots under those conditions.  They kept on saying how the players were hitting lob wedges into 14 but were missing their target - let me suggest this: a lob wedge into an elevated green just isn't the same so the actual square footage available to receive and hold the shot was tiny.  The Open Championship is played under firm and fast conditions but on courses which were designed for those conditions - Pebble Beach ain't St. Andrews.  Golf is far more interesting to watch when someone wins the event as opposed to being the best at surviving.

[Sean Leary]

The hole locations don't matter as much when guys are missing greens all over the place.

I did think it was sad not to see the flag in a more accessible spot on #18.

It seemed more accessible than the normal sunday hole location in 18 over the bunker, no?

[RJ_Daley]

Mickelson was his typical self - an amazing shot followed by a horrendous one or vice versa.

I will say this - course conditions didn't force Mickelson to try to hit a short iron off of the TV cables on 15.  What a bonehead.  That's 2 majors in a row where every single viewer all over the world all simultaneously straightened up in their chairs and simultaneously shouted "W-T-F are you doing?"

That is for sure.  But wasn't it Miller who said that he would actually have a better chance to put some stopping spin on it off the wires?  I just ain't that good of a player to know what the heck he is talkng about.  Phil the thrill never leaves them yawning...

[Sean Leary]

Exactly. Course setup had nothing to do with Dustin Johnson's problems.

Are you kidding?  The man had a wedge in his hand on #2.  If those greens were a little bit softer, he'd never have been trying to land a wedge on the front 2 or 3 feet of the green.  He'd have played maybe 5 feet short of the flag.  But he tried to play a high-precision shot and then, when he shoved it a tad, he was screwed.  With softer greens, he'd have played a safer, more "stock" shot - and been fine.

I think the course conditions were THE "but for" factor that initiated the meltdown in the first place...

Would have been interesting to see what would have happened had DJ hit a good shot on 2 into that green. Who knows if could have played a good round.

I am not sure I like the long eyebrows. It looks cool, but it seems weird to penalize someone for hitting it there rather than in the bunker slightly farther from the green. The "get in the bunker" mentality...

[Phil McDade]

Shivas:

I think it's hard to argue anything other than Johnson sufferied just a total mental meltdown under US Open tournament pressure. I mean, he absolutely cold-shanked a shot in the rough, and clearly was unglued by the 4th with his wayward tee shot. Conditions weren't that much different Sunday than Saturday (overall scoring averaged for the field was slightly lower Sunday than Saturday), so it's hard for me to conclude anything other than Johnson just tanked.

I thought the pin on #7 was the silliest -- maybe not the pin, but the tee markers and length. Similar to that silly tongue of a green the USGA ordered BBlack to install last year on the back nine par 3, and then put the final-round pin on it. #7 set up Sunday forced everyone, it seemed, into playing back-left -- it was pretty monotonous.

[Matt_Ward]

Ran / Mike:

Both well said -- I don't watch golf for car wrecks -- that's what NASCAR is for.

[Phil McDade]

So, how exactly was Pebble different than:

-- BBlack '09, where the top four finishers were a collective 10-over-par in the final round, the third-round leader shot +6 on the last day, and the eventual winner hit a courageous 6-iron off the tee to seal his win?

-- Oakmont '07, where the third-round leader shot 80 on the final day and the winning score was +5?

-- WFoot '06, in which a bunched leaderboard saw the top 5 players score a collective 8 over par on the final round, the third-round leader shot +6 on the day, and sparkling final hole play from the likes of Mickelson, Monty, and Furyk.

[Phil McDade]

Shivas:

I think it's hard to argue anything other than Johnson sufferied just a total mental meltdown under US Open tournament pressure. I mean, he absolutely cold-shanked a shot in the rough, and clearly was unglued by the 4th with his wayward tee shot. Conditions weren't that much different Sunday than Saturday (overall scoring averaged for the field was slightly lower Sunday than Saturday), so it's hard for me to conclude anything other than Johnson just tanked.

Agreed, but it all got set in motion because he knew the 2nd green was so rock-hard, even with a wedge in his hands, he had to land the ball around the front fringe, bringing the front-right bunker into play, to stay under the hole and still get it close enough to have a shot at birdie/likely par.  If that green were soft, even with the push, he's got a 15 footer for birdie from right of the pin and the stupid lefty shot and the subsequent shank never happen ...

The sign of a player not ready to win a major is compounding a poor shot or a bad break with stupid lefty shots and shanks....

[Carl Nichols]

The pin on #6 has to count as easy -- Shaun Micheel made double-eagle and there were four eagles on Sunday.   

[Michael Blake]

Pebble is known for its small greens so when they are really firm they become zero greens.

I agree Jerry.  Perhaps fast & firm doesn't work so well on a course with 'small' greens.  Combined with the hole locations, it seemed to make the course look tricked-up and goofy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()