Setup of US Open courses

[David_Elvins]

Like most people here I am always dissapointed with the way that the courses are set up for the US Open (and to some extent, the US PGA).  

Any objections that the set ups amounts to architectural vandalism are rejected in the governing bodies' obsession with "protecting par."  Maybe the only alternative argument to protecting par is not "maintaining the architectural integrity of the course" but "producing a worthy champion."

It seems to me that the "British" Open and US MAsters with their less penal se up produce far more worthy champions (and placegetters) than the US Open and PGA.   What I would like to do is prove it.  And thereby prove that good architecture, and sensible course set, up produces good champions.

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to produce a statistical analysis of the last 15 years of major championships comparing the world rankings of the winner, top 5 and top 10 for each major.  More importantly, does anyone know where I can get the World Ranking information to do this.  Any help much appreciated.

[Peter Galea]

David, I'd like to see the info you compile, it would be interesting. I think you will have a hard time "proving" the champion was; good, and that sensible set up and solid architecture had a part in the win. That said, please don't let my opinion stifle your project.

Start by going to http://www.google.com and typing in "world golf rankings."

[Paul Richards]

David:

I too would like to see your analysis.

However, even The Open doesn't always produce a "worthy
champion" or even a very good champion.

Carnoustie is one of the best (and hardest) courses on
earth.  However, it's defending champion is Paul Lawrie.

Lawrie has about disappeared off the face of golf.  It's
other potential champion, Jean Van de Velde, I saw last
week finished in the middle of the pack in a European
event.  Justin Leonard is still playing well, and had he won
the playoff, would have fit the mold of a "worthy champion."

Yet, you look at the list of past champs at Carnoustie, and
the list is pretty impressive.

[TomSteenstrup]

Paul, would it be fair to say that the setup in 1999 at Carnoustie was very un-Open championship like? It's a strech, but I think that's the reason for the results that year.

Tom

[Tim_Weiman]

David Elvins:

The very best thing we can do is keep the major championships as different as possible.  The mere suggestion that there is single standard for the way courses should be set up for these events makes no sense.

We don't want the British Open to become more US Open like.  We don't want the US Open to become more like the British Open.  The Masters shouldn't be like either one of them.  Nor should the PGA.

Rather than argue which event or set up produces a "more worthy champion", we should just try to be sure each event is unique: different courses, different set ups, different skill emphasized, etc.

The single standard you are pushing encourages the introduction of rough at Augusta and debacles like Carnoustie.  The best way to avoid those mistakes is to stop complaining about the US Open.  It is intended to be something different.  It is intended to be something penal.  It is intended to place a very strong emphasis on accuracy, hitting fairways and greens.  It is NOT intended to test creativity like the British Open does.  It is not intended to reward length as much as the Masters does.

[John_McMillan]

A difficulty you'd have in using the world rankings to measure the "value" of major championship winners is that the world rankings are set up to rank more highly those that win major championships.  Statistically, there's a "simultaneity" problem in identifying the results.  There are ways around this, but they bring up their own set of problems and issues.  (The most common way would be to calculate the world rankings without the major championsihps and then use those rankings to rate major championshp winners.  However, there are many golfers who gear their schedules towards winning the major championships.  If you did that, you might find that Jack Nicklaus wasn't much of a golfer - he played in about 18-20 tournaments per year, including the 4 majors.  If you excluded major championships, you could probably find golfers whose performance was better than Nicklaus in his 14 or so non-major tournaments).

The results would be interesting ... but it would take ALOT of work to get them to mean anything statistically.

[TomSteenstrup]

Could you simplify the analysis by just ranking the majors in order of multiple major winners? I would guess that the Masters has the most winners who have one more than one major, while the US Open may have the most winners with only one major title.

Did that paragraph make any sense?

Tom

[John_McMillan]

Tom,

One reason the Masters has more multiple winners is that it is the only major played on only one course.  Once someone has "wired" Augusta National, they have a pretty good 10 to 15 year run at the Masters Tournament.  

Across majors, there are roughly two types of players - those who win the Masters and British Open (Ballesteros / Faldo) and those who win the US Open and PGA Championship (Stewart).  The rarity of golfers who cross those lines makes you appreciate someone like Tiger Woods - who has won them all.

[Ed_Baker]

Great point John,

I had never thought about it in that context,but you're right, there are several multiple major champions that haven't won a career grand slam. It does make you appreciate the talent of those that have.

[Paul Richards]

Tom:

Me'thinks you are correct.  

At the 1999 Open, Carnoustie was not set up in "normal"
fashion, and the winner proved to be less than a
"worthy champion."

[Dan Kelly]

David Elvins --

If I were you, I'd save my energy -- and just reread Tim Weiman's post on this thread.

If your statistical analysis showed that, on average, the top 10 at the US Open were "better" players than the top 10 at the British Open or the top 10 at the Masters, would you recommend that the British Open or the Masters remake itself in the image of the US Open? No. You would not. Nor should you -- and Mr. Weiman eloquently explains why the thought should perish before it's conceived.

Then give some thought to this question: How could we make the PGA Championship a unique event -- rather than a poor man's US Open?

My answer (not exactly original; not AT ALL original): Match Play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Elvins,

What aspects of the course set up do you dislike ?

How would you change them ?

Can you provide specific examples using holes from USOPEN courses ?

[Paul Richards]

Dan:

The match-play format at the PGA is probably a good idea
until you see the results from last week's match-play event.

McCarron vs. Sutherland?

If you are the network paying big bucks for that, you can't
be too happy.

And I'll also tell you that when that match is the Sunday
event at the PGA, I won't be watching it.  I'll be teeing it up
for a second round that day!

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

One feature of an Open setup that I have felt differing emotions about is fairway width. On one hand the purist in me has felt that, yes, these fellows ought to drive it straight, and be punished if they can't drive it well. On the other hand, that setup also can lead to defensive, plodder type of golf. Witness some of the types that have become known as Open players.

John McMillan,

True, Seve and Faldo never won the U.S Open, but they both came close twice that I know of. (Seve at Oakmont '83. and Olympic '87, and Faldo losing to Strange at the '88 Brookline playoff, and lipping out a 72nd hole putt at Medinah in '90 to join the Irwin-Donald playoff) If there was ever a player that should have had success in our Open, it was Faldo. Disciplined type of golfer, who could hit the long irons. I followed him most of the way in the final round at Medinah, and he stuck to his game plan of iron off every tee, including at the 440 18th when he needed a birdie to tie.

[Tim_Weiman]

Dan Kelly:

Thanks.  I didn't think anyone agreed with me one this subject.

Regarding the PGA, for a long time I've been a supporter of match play for this event, but this seems unlikely.  Lately I've moved to the view that the PGA should take the lead in introducing new courses to championship golf.

That way we would have two Opens playing basically a rota (but on different types of courses), one event (Masters) played every year on one course and one event introducing new venues (if not every year then every other year).

[David_Elvins]

Tim

I agree with your observation that the major championships should be kept as different as possible.  But could the differences be more subtle?  You could play the British Open on a links course, the US Open on one of the great old courses (eg Pebble, Oakmont etc), and the US PGA on good newer courses (something like Muirfield Village, or Sallahasee) and of course the Masters at ANGC.  I believe there would be enough architectural difference to give each championship a distinct flavour without going overboard.

Pat,

Here is a detailed (and probably somewhat longwinded)explanation as to why I don't like the US Open setup.  

It all comes down to the rough.  Where it should be and what depth it should be.

Lets look at the 11th hole at Augusta as an example that everyone knows.  A drive hit down the left side of the fairway leaves a shot to the pin at a good angle.  A shot hit down the right side of the fairway leaves a shot at the pin from a good lie but a bad angle (towards the pond).  A shot sliced a bit further leaves a shot at the pin from a "flier lie" with the water behind the hole.  The further the shot is mishit, the harder the next shot is, but it is never impossible.  My own personal belief of good golf architecture follows this strategy, a good drive should be on the "right" side of the fairway, an average drive should be on the "wrong" side of the fairway and a bad drive should be in the rough, but unless way off course, still have a shot at the green, but without much chace of holding the green from a difficult lie.  Of course, the " right" side of the fairway can often be protected by hazards to add a strategic risk/reward element to the hole.  (Also remeber that the green complexes have to be very well designed to do this.)


Compare this with a US Open course, which might have a 20 yard wide fairway.  Hit it and get a shot at the green, miss it and chip out.  THere is very little strategic risk/reward element to the hole.  But in fact it is probably worse than that.  Lets say a US Open hole has a fairway that is wide enough to have a good side and a bad side.  The architect has a put a bunker guarding the left front side of the green.  THis means that to most pin positions the best angle of approach is from the right side of the fairway.  The architect has designed the hole so the right side of the fairway is harder to hit (possible by protecting it with hazards.)  All of the sudden, with 6 inch rough around the green, the front left bunker becomes the best place to miss the green.  So there is no need to flirt with hazards on the Tee shot to get the best angle.  

I think that the greatest travesty with the setup of US Open courses is not the rough on the fairways but the rough around the green.  It just seems silly to hear player after player telling his ball to "get in the bunker" on mishit approach shots.  As mentioned above, it totally vandalises the design intentions of the architect.  You will also notice that I have not used any specific examples from the US Open.  Probably because they all seem to blend together in my memory.  The Country Club looks like Medinah, looks like Oakland Hills when they all have that much rough.

I would also go as far as to say that the Masters does not favour long hitters as much as it favours players with great short games.  Not only do I think that the winners of the Masters are better quality players than the winners of the US Open, I would also also say that they have used a wider variety of shots to do so.  (As an aside I am thinking of Olazabal vs Norman at the Masters.  At the 71st hole JMO hits an awful drive off the tee, he then plays an incredible punch 2 iron onto the middle of the green to all but seal the victory.  Much more exciting and showing a wider range of skill to the par made by Stewart at Pinehurst after he got in trouble on the 72nd hole.)




Before I leave I should also state that my POV is biased due to
1/ previously living close to Royal Melbourne and considering Mackenzie to therefor be "right" on all aspects of architecture.

2/Being Australian and watching Greg Norman play the majors.  Although he was in playoffs for both the US Open and PGA, he definetly had more narrow misses in the Masters and British Open.

All right, that's enough for now, hope it is understandable.
cheers,

PS
Dan,
Statistics should only ever be used to prove a point.  A statistical analysis should not be done with an open mind as to what the results could be.  If the results don't prove the point then the analysis should be tweaked until it does.

[David_Elvins]

Tim,
You posted whist I was writing my "epic".  Doesn't seem like we are that far off after all!

[APBernstein]

Dan and Tim:

It is difficult to make the PGA a unique event.  Its slot as the last major proves difficult because most interest is lost, unless of course, there is a day when someone takes a possible grand slam into August.

The matchplay format has already been "taken" by the WGC.  That would no longer make it unique.

I do like that it introduces new courses into major championship golf.  But I just wish they would be more selective.  We all think that Whistling Straits is a good pick, or at least I think we all do.  Those are the kinds of courses need to make this event more interesting and dynamic.  Valhalla twice in 5 years is certainly not.  Returning the championship to places like Baltusrol and Oakland Hills are good, not great, but good.  Returning to Atlanta Athletic Club is not.

[Tim_Weiman]

Andrew:

I wasn't endorsing specific venues for the PGA (such as Valhalla).  Rather, I'm endorsing the concept of favoring new designs.

Selecting any new venue twice within a short period of time is certainly not part of my vision.

[APBernstein]

Tim:

Well, without rehashing prior discussions, what specific courses would make for new blood?  Could Kohler get two courses into the PGA (Blackwolf and Whistling Straits)?  There are quite a few courses built in hopes of hosting a major, such as Bulle Rock and Caves Valley.  I'm sure the PGA could just salivate over their respective locations.

[Tim_Weiman]

David Elvins:

I take back everything I said.  Any man who lived near RM and holds the Good Doctor in high esteem has my support!

But, I will contradict Mackenzie on the subject of rough.  When it comes to the US Open, the more the merrier, the thicker the better.

It's the best strategy to avoid tragedies like what is going on at Riviera.

[Tim_Weiman]

Andrew,

Honestly, I haven't put together a list of potential candidates.  I just feel that if the two Open will be on rotas and the Masters at one course, the PGA should go in a different direction.

Regarding, Kohler's two courses, both would be fine in my book.  Can't comment on Caves Valley or Bulle Rock as I haven't seen them.

[Mike K]

what the USGA is trying to do is to promote the true ideology of golf. hit the fairway, hit the green, two putt for par, and if you get a birdie, more power to you. That is golf after all, isn't it? Golf was meant to be played that way, and Nicklaus always did this. This is why he won 4 U.S. opens because he respected the true golf ideology.

It may be boring to the viewer, but U.S. open golf is the best. It is the only championship you can win ONLY if you are hitting the ball well. you can get away with some shots at the british, us pga, and the masters, but at the U.S. open.... no way.

[Chris Kane]

Mike K,

You may be stating your true opinion, or just trying to stir everyone here.  Anyway, this is what I think:

what the USGA is trying to do is to promote the true ideology of golf. hit the fairway, hit the green, two putt for par, and if you get a birdie, more power to you

With all due respect, I disagree with you entirely.  Golf is not just a game of ball-striking, but a game played in the head.  The courses of the British Open and Augusta National, in general, encourage strategic play which is at the core of any great golfer.

If the true ideology of golf is to hit the fairway, green and two-putt, then why were many of the acknowledged great courses designed without the long rough and thin fairways which characterise the US Open?

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike K:

You probably won't find a stronger supporter of penal USGA set ups here than me.  But, still, I would advise against suggesting the US Open is the "true ideology" of golf, the best tournament, etc.

What is most important is that the major championships are very different.  This doesn't mean one is better than the other.  Just different.

Nicklaus, as you know, didn't just win US Opens.  He is special for his ability to win on different courses with different set ups.  Ditto Tiger.  That's what separates them from other great players like Ballesterous or Irwin.

Chris K:

Courses reach a status of being "great" based on everyday play.  Nobody would ever suggest that USGA setups make sense for more than one tournament for a very small elite of the most capable golfer.

That said, I do happen to think US Opens test one's "head" just as much as ball striking.  The "head" I'm refering to is the ability to handle constant pressure, to make good decisions while under pressure,  to execute difficult shots (e.g., accurate tee shots), etc.

Again, the big problem comes when people try to encourage the majors to morph into a single kind of test.  I hope we never let that happen.