[Tom Walsh]

Patrick- a great point--where was the official at the 'bunker'?

[Steve Burrows]

Patrick- a great point--where was the official at the 'bunker'?

Is it really the role of the rules officials to prevent players from making mistakes?  I would think their role as REACTIVE rather than PROACTIVE.  They are not babysitters; players call them in when they have a question about the rules. 

[Phil McDade]

Are officials obligated to be pro-actice and "warn" players? That would seem to be unusual, but perhaps not; what's the experience of those who have played in high-stakes competition?

[Kevin Pallier]

I understand the sentiments for Dustin but surely one would normally play "safe" by not grounding the club anway ?


Kevin,

Everything is clearer when viewed from your couch.
In the heat of competition, coming to the last hole, in the lead, ala JVV, your mind isn't always functioning as it might or should.

It's also hard to alter your pre-shot routine.

But, perhaps an official should have warned him that his ball was in a hazard and not just an unkempt area.

PENAL ?   ?   ?

I rest my case

Pat

Again - I feel for DJ and think that the excessive overbunkering has become more of a story now. Maybe his caddy could also have chimed in perhaps ?

It sucks big time but when your ball lies anywhere near sand (in what has "bunkerlike" characteristics) surely one of the first things you think of is don't ground your club ?

[Tom Walsh]

Obviously the whole thing was unusual--people walking through, standing in, etc. Reminded me of or looked like some Scottish 'bunker' circa 1840.

[Tim Bert]

So the good people of the tournament committee foresaw this and proactively put together a paragraph about all sandy areas being bunkers even if they had tire tracks, footprints, etc. So, by the rules I suppose DJ was treated fairly. His fault. But my goodness what a terrible idea to play the bunkers where the spectators are standing as anything but waste areas.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin,

I agree, I really feel for the guy.

But, if that was a bunker, where was gallery control to prevent spectators from walking through them ?

I've watched a lot of tournament golf, in person and on TV and I've never noticed the gallery milling in or walking through bunkers.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

[Kevin Pallier]

Pat

Surely it must be pretty hard as a spectator to walk that course and not walk through any of the thousand or so bunkers ? 

[John Moore II]

Kevin,

I agree, I really feel for the guy.

But, if that was a bunker, where was gallery control to prevent spectators from walking through them ?

I've watched a lot of tournament golf, in person and on TV and I've never noticed the gallery milling in or walking through bunkers.

Something is rotten in Denmark.

I agree Pat, this was one of the worst decisions I've ever seen or heard of, mostly because of the really foolish local rule that was in place. But, back to the original topic, I still don't think the course itself is overly penal. He made a good recovery from that sand and even from the deep grass. Almost made par, thankfully he didn't, that would have made it even more tragic.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I think golfers like to play/experience the same course that the PGA Tour golfers play.

I'd like to play WS.

But, I wouldn't like to play it on an daily basis.

I recognize that it's a resort, a destination and as such it doesn't march to the same drummer as a local or private club.

I could play Oakmont every day.
I'm sure my handicap might get an adjustment, but, I think you can figure the course out.


To MY mind, Oakmont is a DRIVING course.

I think most, if not all of the membership adjusts to the greens.

I don't know that the membership can adjust to the fairway bunkering.

When I see a good number of PGA Tour Pros, playing their best golf, double and triple bogeying holes, it sends a signal to me that perhaps the course is too penal, especially since it's a windy site.

Would I pay $ 360 to play a round ?  Yes
Would I pay a price commensurate with other clubs to join it ?  I doubt it.

I want to enjoy myself when I play golf, not torture myself.

I also don't want to play well, have 16 pars and birdies and two X's

Getting back to the maintainance issue, if WS was member owned, you'd see numerous changes.
But, the owners have very deep pockets and it's visually stimulating for the retain golfer, who they want to attract.

While watching yesterday, the man next to me, who owns and operates private and public courses, who's played WS numerous times, told me that it was a maintainance nightmare, including expenses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin,

Perhaps they didn't start off as bunkers.

Perhaps the spectators hunkered down for the night and formed those depressions, like the sheep at TOC

It's certainly been entertaining theatre, but, I feel for the golfers who were snakebit or unlucky.

[John Moore II]

Pat-Yes, the course would probably be changed if member owned. And like I said before, the PGA players were making those big numbers because they got greedy.

[Phil McDade]

When I see a good number of PGA Tour Pros, playing their best golf, double and triple bogeying holes, it sends a signal to me that perhaps the course is too penal, especially since it's a windy site.

Patrick:

The top six finishers all shot par or better today, five of them under par. D. Johnson would've shot under par save for a two-shot penalty re. a silly local rule.

Rounds of -5, -4, and -3 were shot today; two contenders played quite poorly (Furyk and Watney), one of them surely unaccustomed to the pressures of playing in the final group of a major.

The course was not excessively penal today; but, the line between birdies and pars vs. doubles or worse was quite close.

[John Moore II]

When I see a good number of PGA Tour Pros, playing their best golf, double and triple bogeying holes, it sends a signal to me that perhaps the course is too penal, especially since it's a windy site.

Patrick:

The top six finishers all shot par or better today, five of them under par. D. Johnson would've shot under par save for a two-shot penalty re. a silly local rule.

Rounds of -5, -4, and -3 were shot today; two contenders played quite poorly (Furyk and Watney), one of them surely unaccustomed to the pressures of playing in the final group of a major.

The course was not excessively penal today; but, the line between birdies and pars vs. doubles or worse was quite close.

Same with Bubba making 6 on that final playoff hole. It wasn't the course being overly penal, it was him trying to get too much out of a sketchy lie. Wonder how he'll sleep tonight after that one...the course itself is quite fair for those willing to take their medicine and play a little bit conservative.

[Steve Lapper]

JKM,

I think golfers like to play/experience the same course that the PGA Tour golfers play.

I'd like to play WS.

But, I wouldn't like to play it on an daily basis.

I recognize that it's a resort, a destination and as such it doesn't march to the same drummer as a local or private club.

I could play Oakmont every day.
I'm sure my handicap might get an adjustment, but, I think you can figure the course out.


To MY mind, Oakmont is a DRIVING course.

I think most, if not all of the membership adjusts to the greens.

I don't know that the membership can adjust to the fairway bunkering.

When I see a good number of PGA Tour Pros, playing their best golf, double and triple bogeying holes, it sends a signal to me that perhaps the course is too penal, especially since it's a windy site.

Would I pay $ 360 to play a round ?  Yes
Would I pay a price commensurate with other clubs to join it ?  I doubt it.

I want to enjoy myself when I play golf, not torture myself.

I also don't want to play well, have 16 pars and birdies and two X's

Getting back to the maintainance issue, if WS was member owned, you'd see numerous changes.
But, the owners have very deep pockets and it's visually stimulating for the retain golfer, who they want to attract.

While watching yesterday, the man next to me, who owns and operates private and public courses, who's played WS numerous times, told me that it was a maintainance nightmare, including expenses.

Pat,

As you probably know, Oakmont once had at least a hundred or so extra bunkers as part of Fownes original design. I don't pretend to know where, exactly, they were, but in my rounds there, several of the members remarked that they were outside the normal course of play and ultimately removed as being excessively penal. I do suspect they were REAL bunkers with depth, lips and examples of automate one-stroke penalties.

What we have seen tonight at WS defines, for me, the absolute insane nature of excessive eye candy and just plain dumb insertion of sandy "zits." The whole place needs to grow up past it's childish nature and realize that it is near demeaning to the game to reach these extremities of architecture.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat-Yes, the course would probably be changed if member owned. And like I said before, the PGA players were making those big numbers because they got greedy.

JKM,

In my limited experience, the one thing that PGA Tour players aren't, is greedy.

They're very calculating in their play.

Real percentage players as a whole.

If they were "greedy" as a whole, you'd see these high scores at every weekly PGA Tour event.

[jeffwarne]

I can't accept them calling this a bunker. There were footsteps in it and spectators standing in it. This is the nightmare scenario of Dye's excessive bunkering. There is no way he shouldn't have been able to ground the club from there.

I agree totally. This was no way a bunker. It looks like a sandy hole. Its trampled down and walked all over by the gallery, its got trash in it, grass all over, no way its a bunker.

I thought it looked more like a bunker than any frilly edged, perfectly raked, properly lipped thing I've seen in years.
tell me again what a hazard should look like?

[Patrick_Mucci]

When I see a good number of PGA Tour Pros, playing their best golf, double and triple bogeying holes, it sends a signal to me that perhaps the course is too penal, especially since it's a windy site.

Patrick:

The top six finishers all shot par or better today, five of them under par. D. Johnson would've shot under par save for a two-shot penalty re. a silly local rule.

Phil,

Think about what you're saying.
The six players, playing at their absolute best shot under par.

How did the other 60 or so golfers fare today ?

Did you see the scores of the best players in the world who didn't make the cut ?

How would you categorize their play ?

Rounds of -5, -4, and -3 were shot today; two contenders played quite poorly (Furyk and Watney), one of them surely unaccustomed to the pressures of playing in the final group of a major.

The course was not excessively penal today; but, the line between birdies and pars vs. doubles or worse was quite close.


The golf course is static.
The wind isn't, but the course is.

Your example only encompasses the six golfers who played their best and ignores all the others.

[Steve_Lovett]

Re: the original title of the post...

I vote YES. 

I can't think of a more contrived, unnatural looking golf course.  Thanks to Herb Kohler's wealth I'm sure Pete Dye was able to deliver what he wanted.  It's "eye candy" - beautiful in many ways, with a stunning backdrop.  Over generations, I suspect it will prove to be unsustainable.

Re: the penalty...

The Rules Document that the PGA rules official referred to described the bunkers as being "designed & built".  Dustin Johnson's drive on 18 landed in a location that was "trampled & unkempt".  I'd have difficult time clearly drawing the conlusion that the spot was "designed & built"...

[John Moore II]

Pat-Yes, the course would probably be changed if member owned. And like I said before, the PGA players were making those big numbers because they got greedy.

JKM,

In my limited experience, the one thing that PGA Tour players aren't, is greedy.

They're very calculating in their play.

Real percentage players as a whole.

If they were "greedy" as a whole, you'd see these high scores at every weekly PGA Tour event.

No, you wouldn't see it every week, because the regular courses don't have the set-up this one did. This is a very difficult course. It is penalizing for guys who hit it off line. But Watney and others got too greedy trying to make recoveries and it bit them. They don't have to get overly greedy at regular tour events, the punishment for off line shots isn't nearly as severe. Just look at Pebble Beach. Guys go deep at the AT&T because the course is easier overall and recovery from miss-hit shots is fairly easy; at the US Open, guys were shooting monster numbers because the course is harder overall and recoveries are even more difficult, proportionately, than before.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JKM,

I"m glad we finally agree that WS is a penal golf course 

I'd love to know what the maintainance budget is.

[John Moore II]

JKM,

I"m glad we finally agree that WS is a penal golf course 

I'd love to know what the maintainance budget is.

I never said it wasn't penal. I said it wasn't EXCESSIVELY penal. There is a difference there. And I am sure their budget is astronomical; of course so are their rates, so I doubt it is a money-losing venture.

[MikeJones]

I like it! Yes it's penal in most places but then again it's strategic too in others not least in how many options you have to get the ball back into play when you screw up the first time. This week's PGA has seen countless situations where the player has had to choose how much to bite of with a recovery shot and often times has got it wrong. I'd take this over the 'hack it out of the deep stuff with a wedge syndrome' that is often the case in US Opens and PGA's.

The course is very different in it's look and if they can afford to keep it that way what's wrong with that? Should we all downgrade our cars to the lowest common denominator because some people can't afford big, powerful, ostentatious ones?

It's one of the most spectaular courses I've ever seen and very different in it's look to most. It may slide towards the impossible side of difficult for the average golfer but then again I'll bet they remember one round here than 10 others on many of the so called classic courses people here harp on about endlessly. Maybe, just maybe, that despite all the balls they may lose, that one fantastic shot they hit against seemingly unsurmountable odds will leave them with fond memories and a willingness to return and see if they can do it again the next time.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I too do not remember it playing that penal except for a few holes.  17 and 18 are incredibly hard holes but neither are penal but close.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Isn't Pete Dye an advocate of "penal" golf ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()