[Patrick_Mucci]

Richard,

You're wrong.

ANGC is a VERY WIDE golf course.

As to the ground game being played in U.S. Opens, could you identify the venues where the ground game was an integral part of play ?

[Richard Choi]

Pat,

I didn't say ANGC isn't a wide course. It just isn't as wide as it used to be. And all I am saying that the width does not matter anymore (because as you said it is all about the aerials at ANGC) and it really wouldn't matter much if they wanted to narrow it even further.

The last US Opens at Pebble and Shinny where the greens were very very firm forced players to bounce balls into the green because anything landing in the middle was going to bounce off. And I promise you it will be the same at Chambers (as it was during US Am).

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat,
Of course its wide, but without firm greens does it really matter where you hit it in the fwy? For me if they are going to go down the road of very soft greens why not at least narrow it up a bit more and make it even more similar to most PGA stops?
I don't think there is a bad angle from the fwys when the greens are so soft. Makes for good theater, makes for a lot of players going low, and makes for, just as you noted, just another stop on the tour except for the money, history and traditions. Those are very big things and I get that part of the pressure, but with soft greens, the pressure is greatly diminished.  

[Bill Gayne]

Richard,

Why is the aerial game considered a lesser form of golf?

[Richard Choi]

Because it takes less strategy and imagination and offers less variety in play.

[Bill Gayne]

Richard,

Tournament golf is a game of scoring. If the best strategy is the aerial game it is superior. The game you saw today was about converting five shots into four and four into three and three into two and it's the aerial strategy that gets it done.

[Sean Leary]

Richard,

We get it. ANGC is no Chambers Bay. Although if CB continues with its poa infestation then it may be just like ANGC and your heart will be broken in 2015. 

[Richard Choi]

Bill, I don't follow.

If I understand your logic, does it mean that any course where I can go low is a superior course?

[John Shimp]

This masters was great.  Richard, quit fighting.  This aerial, soft, not strategic stuff you and other keep spouting is BS.  Go visit th place.  It's the best tournament venue in the world despite the  narrowing and lengthening.  You don't know what firm and fast means to take the topic up against angc and you also don't know the course since you've not seen it.   Move on to something you can add value to.

[John Kavanaugh]

All day long golfers aimed away from the pin in order to use the ground to get closer to the hole. Ie: The ground game.  Nobody was throwing darts, the greens were not soft.

[Brent Hutto]

All day long golfers aimed away from the pin in order to use the ground to get closer to the hole. Ie: The ground game.  Nobody was throwing darts, the greens were not soft.

Exactly.

For some people, the "ground" apparently does not include the putting surfaces, fringes or the last several yards of approach aprons and false fronts. I rather suspect that "ground" is defined flexibly enough to support almost any argument one likes.

[Richard Choi]

This masters was great.  Richard, quit fighting.  This aerial, soft, not strategic stuff you and other keep spouting is BS.  Go visit th place.  It's the best tournament venue in the world despite the  narrowing and lengthening.  You don't know what firm and fast means to take the topic up against angc and you also don't know the course since you've not seen it.   Move on to something you can add value to.

John if risk/reward and strategy is BS, then pretty much most of what we talk about on this board is BS.

[JC Jones]

The ground game was certainly available to Tiger on #8.  The ground game was certainly available to Schwartzel on #1.  Look at the fairway height around all of the greens.  Hell, the coolest part about #3 is the area to the left of the back and behind where the pin was today.  

The ground game has never, in the history of ANGC, been available on #12,13,15 or 16.  The most exciting holes on the back 9 since the Masters began.

[Kris Shreiner]

While it may not be everyone's ideal golf, the Masters gang nailed the set-up perfectly for this event. Sure, it's aerial golf. It's Augusta. But as JK points out, plenty of creativity was still required and employed to score. Could the fairways have been firmer? Maybe, but I don't know what it would have added to the AWESOME golf we all witnessed today.

The Open Championship will be your chance Richard, hang in there. Your a little fixated on that Chambers Bay influence. Not every course can, or should be set-up to attain that style of required play. Variety is the spice of life. Today it was rich, a bit lush tee to green, but quite testing once in the neighborhood of the objective.  Perfect in my view.

Cheers,
 Kris

[Peter Pallotta]

I don't know, but when I turned off the set at the end of the tournament my first thought was "I guess 14 under is the new minus 9".  It just felt like 25 years had dropped away -- factoring in the 25 years-worth of changes of course.

Peter

[Brent Hutto]

It's hard for a firm approach ramp to a large, open green to create as much excitement as a 200+ yard aerial shot over a water hazard to a shallow green with some contour to it.

However, the open green and firm approach is much more exciting to play for those of us who would be forced to lay up instead of attempt 215 yards over the creek on #15 at ANGC. It is entirely possible and logically consistent to term it "B.S." when someone harps on "Ground game good, aerial game bad" in an attempt to disparage play at The Masters while at the same time considering the ground game and "strategy" (so-called in it's meaning here) when talking about the design of courses to be played by average players.

The challanges, hazards, difficulties and opportunites presented by a major championship venue are often quite inappropriate for the handicap player. That does not make them any less valid as tests for Tigers Wood or Charl Schwartzel just because they're off the charts in difficulty for the rest of us. Nor does it mean courses should not be designed which emphasize other parts of the game than the ultimate challenge for elite golfers.

[Tim Martin]

This masters was great.  Richard, quit fighting.  This aerial, soft, not strategic stuff you and other keep spouting is BS.  Go visit th place.  It's the best tournament venue in the world despite the  narrowing and lengthening.  You don't know what firm and fast means to take the topic up against angc and you also don't know the course since you've not seen it.   Move on to something you can add value to.

John if risk/reward and strategy is BS, then pretty much most of what we talk about on this board is BS.

Rich-I know you are not going to give in but your argument is hollow especially if you survey the opinions of those that have weighed in on this thread. Your original premise about the setup is flawed. Go see the golf course and report back.

[Eric Smith]

The ground game has never, in the history of ANGC, been available on #12,13,15 or 16.  The most exciting holes on the back 9 since the Masters began.

Jason,

I don't know whether or not you saw some of the guys do this when you were there on Tuesday, but oftentimes they'll eschew the aerial attack for a ground game-esque low skipper over the pond on 16. It's very entertaining.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I didn't say ANGC isn't a wide course. It just isn't as wide as it used to be. And all I am saying that the width does not matter anymore (because as you said it is all about the aerials at ANGC) and it really wouldn't matter much if they wanted to narrow it even further.


Richard, what you're not understanding is that the ball doesn't move as much.
Golfers drive it straighter and longer, thus, in order to remain relevant as a challenge, you can't provide football field DZ's.

The last US Opens at Pebble and Shinny where the greens were very very firm forced players to bounce balls into the green because anything landing in the middle was going to bounce off. And I promise you it will be the same at Chambers (as it was during US Am).

Wait a second.  Almost everyone complained about the conditions at Shinnecock being goofy golf.

And, I don't recall anyone bouncing the balls short of the greens at Pebble.

On what holes ?

[Richard Choi]

Tim, I don't understand the logic of the need to "be there" to see how soft the greens are.

Do they allow you to walk on the green and hit a few shot to see how soft the greens are when you attend the tournament? Does what you see on TV tell you nothing about how soft/firm the greens are?

I understand that some of the finer points of the course are impossible to tell on TV, but the firmness of the green isn't one of them.

[JC Jones]

Pat,

I didn't say ANGC isn't a wide course. It just isn't as wide as it used to be. And all I am saying that the width does not matter anymore (because as you said it is all about the aerials at ANGC) and it really wouldn't matter much if they wanted to narrow it even further.

The 15th fairway, where the crosswalk is, is 65 yards wide.

The last US Opens at Pebble and Shinny where the greens were very very firm forced players to bounce balls into the green because anything landing in the middle was going to bounce off. And I promise you it will be the same at Chambers (as it was during US Am).

How could one bounce a ball into #9,10,12,13,15,16 or 18?

Quit blaming changes to the course and soft greens.  There is nothing fast and firm could do to change what you don't like about the course: the architecture.

[Don_Mahaffey]

ANGC clearly wanted a set up of very receptive greens that were ultra fast. That is exactly what they got and most here seem to love it as well. Good for all of you. Go back to your home club and try and do the same if it makes for such outstanding golf.
Me, I'll always desire firmer greens and a little less speed. And yes, I think ANGC is a great course as well and would have been even more appealing today with a little more bounce in the greens and a little less speed. Set up like that, I believe the winning score would have been very close to what we got today, but there would have been fewer in the hunt. Maybe that's a bad thing.
JK, yes, the players were using side banks and back boards all day to spin shots closer to the hole. Exciting stuff, but not quite as testing as when you know if your just a little off your liable to bounce right over. As soft as the greens were the players knew the chance of their ball bounding away from them was very small, thus we got to witness very aggressive play and lots of low scores. Exactly what I'm sure the folks at ANGC wanted, CBS wanted, the players wanted, and what most of the rest of you here wanted. I found it a little too orchestrated.  

[Sean Leary]

16 and 17 greens seemed pretty firm today.

Also for all the bitching about lengthening 7, it sure seemed like the guys were hitting short irons in all weekend.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,
Of course its wide, but without firm greens does it really matter where you hit it in the fwy?

I believe it does at ANGC, but, certainly with firmer greens, the premium on the DZ and approach magnifies.

For me if they are going to go down the road of very soft greens why not at least narrow it up a bit more and make it even more similar to most PGA stops?

Don, I'm certainly not an advocate of soft greens, but, I did see alot of balls hit greens and catapult over them.
You saw it on # 15, # 16 and other holes.
We expect optimum conditions and I don't know, even with great technology, if you can refine a living organism to precision at exactly the right moment.  Temperatures were supposed ot hit 90 Degrees today, while the course closes shortly, I know they don't want to lose their greens

I don't think there is a bad angle from the fwys when the greens are so soft.
When ball after ball that hit pin high or longer went over # 15, I don't think you can call the greens soft.
I'd agree that they weren't hard, but, they didn't seem soft to me today.

Makes for good theater, makes for a lot of players going low, and makes for, just as you noted, just another stop on the tour except for the money, history and traditions. Those are very big things and I get that part of the pressure, but with soft greens, the pressure is greatly diminished.  

I agree, but, I disagree with your categorization of the greens as being "soft"

Could they have been firmer ?  Sure, but, I don't know enough about the agronomic and weather conditions to determine what the appropriate degree of receptiveness should have been

[Patrick_Mucci]

All day long golfers aimed away from the pin in order to use the ground to get closer to the hole. Ie: The ground game.  Nobody was throwing darts, the greens were not soft.

JakaB,

You'll have to debate that issue with Don Mahaffey

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()