Atlanta Athletic Club and Golf, Winners This Week

[William_G]

Terry, I'm guessing the ratings will be terrible. Nuff said

"Nuff said".  What are you talking about?  

So, as someone who watched the tournament...you want high ratings over a good golf tournament.  Like I mentioned previously in this thread, we can't control what stupid people do.  

If people want to watch Tiger and Phil and this is it...too bad for them.  As someone who enjoys golf, that tournament was damn good.

Nuff said.

+1

[Matthew Rose]

Keegan's been in very good form most of the summer.... I'm shocked by those who seem surprised by his victory. He's actually won something (HP Byron Nelson) and been competitive in other things.

I think he'll have a nice career.

[Steve Okula]

Unlike the other three majors this year this tournament will bring no one into the game.

I forget where I read it, but something like 99% of golfers take up the game after being introduced to it by a friend, colleague, or family member.

I've never met anyone who started playing just because they saw it on TV. Have you?

I'd like to hear from anybody on this board who has come that way, or knows someone who did. 

[John Mayhugh]

It was pretty busy out there the last few days.  I don't know the numbers, but they didn't seem small.

Regardless, AAC can't help it if people are stupid.

Stupid in what way (e.g. not attending the event, not watching on TV, criticizing the course)? 

[John Kavanaugh]

Atlanta can't sell out the World Series or Football playoffs.  Richard Jewel was the brightest sports fan who ever lived there and he is dead.

[jeffwarne]

Keegan's been in very good form most of the summer.... I'm shocked by those who seem surprised by his victory. He's actually won something (HP Byron Nelson) and been competitive in other things.

I think he'll have a nice career.

He's also got a great teacher who will keep him moving forward, not backward like so many other gurus who are often making it up as they go along

[George Pazin]

Seems as though the event didn't sway too many. If you liked AAC before, you looked at Bradley's birdies when it counted. If you didn't, you looked at all the water ball boredom and yawned.

In a weird way, it kinda reminded me of The Players (TM). With water on 15, 17 & 18, no lead was safe. For some reason, I enjoy it more at Sawgrass, but that could just be my well known bias toward Pete Dye...

As an aside, I get the feeling I'm the only golf fan that doesn't like 3 and 4 hole playoffs. Anyone else? For me, it's sudden death or 18, no tweeners need apply.

[Tim Pitner]

The top finishers this week were:

Bradley
Dufner
A. Hansen
Karlsson
Toms
Verplank

All good players surely, but nothing to get excited about.  There's not a perfect correlation between the quality of a course and the quality of a leaderboard, but there is some correlation.  And I know it's not fair to Bradley and the other contenders--hey, they played the best this week--but it is more compelling to watch players with whom you're familiar.  I didn't stick around to watch the playoff--I just wasn't particularly interested.

[Jud_T]

The ratings were down 33% from last year.  I'm guessing nobody's happy about that except for the stations running "Everybody Loves Raymond" reruns against it...

[DMoriarty]

Garland's comments are on the money.
______________________________________

Mr. Morrow,

I thought this was a website about golf architecture.  That is what the homepage claims at least; "GolfClubAtlas.com is presented to promote frank commentary on golf course architecture."  Perhaps you should join or start "CompellingGolf.com" if you feel so passionately that the website is misguided with their focus on the golf courses rather than your cheerleading.

Personally, I could only bear to watch a bit of the tournament, but then I tune in mainly for the courses rather than what you might find to be "compelling golf."  Besides I guess I don't find six irons into 520 yard par fours all that compelling. But then I don't scour youtube for traffic accidents either.  

From what little I saw, it looked like a slog. Not fun at all.  An embarrassment.  A pointed example of what is wrong with much of modern golf architecture and what is wrong with modern competitive golf.  How many forced carries over concrete bulwarked water bunkers must they force onto a course, and is that really "compelling?"   How many ridiculously long par fours does "compelling" golf need?  How many guard rail bunkers can they fit on a single course?

No wonder the PGA Championship is by far the most minor of majors.  Had this tournament been called the Coca-Cola Greater Atlanta Open, it would have come and passed with nary a notice, as if the silly season had started a week early.  

And rather than actually defend the course, you take shots at everyone else with your snide comments about Doak and Hanse posters, etc.   Doak and Hanse build excellent golf courses, so why wouldn't they be discussed on a golf course design website?   Rees and AAC deserve discussing, too, but for different reasons.  

_____________________________________


Mac, you've got some nerve for calling anyone "stupid" in this circumstance.  

[Tim Leahy]

I think the course did its job. It lead to a great finish. It made the players take risks or layup and pay the consequences. To me that's a great major venue.

[George Pazin]

I think the course did its job. It lead to a great finish. It made the players take risks or layup and pay the consequences. To me that's a great major venue.

In this context, what course wouldn't be a great major venue? Is Pebble downgraded because Tiger destroyed the field in 2000? Or Augusta in '97?

For me personally, a great major venue tests interesting shots, even if they are seemingly simple ones (think Ogilvy's chip on 18 at the '06 US Open, Furyk's play on 17 at Oakmont, etc.). They aren't simply: hit it in the water or don't. Hit it in the fairway or don't.

When I think about compelling golf, it rarely has a leader self-destructing. Or even worse, in this case: just whittling away one shot after another with indifferent play.

Hats off to Keegan - the bounceback was unbelievably impressive. I'd even say hats off to Dufner for playing well on 18 and then in the playoff. Can't say it's a venue I am eagerly awaiting a return visit to by the big boys.

[Garland Bayley]

I think the course did its job. It lead to a great finish. It made the players take risks or layup and pay the consequences. To me that's a great major venue.

Tim,

Which part of "Funny you should mention goat ranch here. You could have a great PGA that was compelling to watch at a goat ranch. So what job did AAC do? When did the course become animate and start working? Several times a year there are playoffs at tour events. Did those courses work hard at providing us that entertainment too?" didn't you understand?

[Anthony Gray]

  I think the course was a winner also. I like the idea of two par 3s in the final four holes. Water on 3 of the last 4 made for great theater. A winner.

  Anthony

 

[DMoriarty]

I agree with George.

Could we come up with a lower standard than "It did its job?"   At a lesser course, would no winner have been determined,  one way or another?    How does a course fail to "do its job" by such lax standards.

Tim Leahy, when the choice is whether a professional golfer must choose between to laying up or going for it with a six iron from a fairway[/i], I fail to see that as a compelling choice.   And I fail to see how the same dilemma over and over again makes for interesting golf.

[Mark Pritchett]

Tim Leahy, when the choice is whether a professional golfer must choose between to laying up or going for it with a six iron from a fairway[/i], I fail to see that as a compelling choice.   And I fail to see how the same dilemma over and over again makes for interesting golf.

Did you like Lucas Glover finishing the 2009 US Open at Bethpage with a 6 iron-9 iron to the green?  Now that was compelling. 

[Anthony Gray]

  The only thing the tournament sufferd from was its leaderboard. If the top name players were in the final groups it would have gone down as one for the ages. Phil coming from 5 behind with 3 to go would have been stuff for legends.

  Anthony

[Mark Pritchett]

  The only thing the tournament sufferd from was its leaderboard. If the top name players were in the final groups it would have gone down as one for the ages. Phil coming from 5 behind with 3 to go would have been stuff for legends.

  Anthony

The Phil statue would already be in the works to go next to Bobby Jones one. 

[RJ_Daley]

I doubt there will ever be an instance where the PGA, USGA or Euro PGA will make any decisions on what course they use, or how they present their product based on the complaints expressed in these many threads.  

The PGA like all the other 3 majors, and all tour stops globally and here in US are predicated on profit, maximizing profit and marketing of the entire golf industry from ball and impliment, to sports drink to memberships, to providing the players with their own branding and marketing platforms.  

What course they play this on will now and forever more always be predicated on the logistics of presenting the product first and foremost as a marketing platform to maximize profits.  That is all...

If you want a purer form of golf on more interesting courses, perhaps the Walker Cup or regional amatuer events, are the place to go.  

I am in full sympathy with the folks on the architecture of these major venues (only the Open escapes this remodelling to a degree), but they are never going to play a course on 99.9% of the consensus favorites here on GCA.  The Winged Foots, Pebble, Oakmonts are still in the rota subject to tweaking for degree of difficulty-competition, and it is what it is.  And what it is remains a commercial global business.  And, these commercial aspects and considerations are in basically all professional sports, where purists in those sports all are perpetually howling how the sports are being ruined; yet they buy the tickets!

So, if you are bored, go out an play a round at your most affordable for you, and best choice you can make based on what you like in a golf course design, and skip thepro-major toon-a-mint viewing...  

...unless you like to  come on GCA.com to criticize and analyze the subject, to no avail or effect.  

[Tom_Doak]

4. During Tiger's period of ALWAYS contending in majors, many here (and other places) claimed that his records were diminished at least somewhat because there were so few other players who could step up and win majors.  Now that Tiger is (at least for now) not contending, EVERY major is being won by a different player, which just goes to show the depth of competition in today's game.  It makes it all the more obvious how truly dominant Woods was.

A.G.:

I just couldn't let this comment slip without questioning the logic.

The fact that every major is being won by a different player would indicate to me that nobody is dominant with Tiger gone ... but it does not indicate that the level of play is necessarily high.  Indeed, the fact that nobody can win more than one or two majors seems to indicate that there aren't very many real champions among them.  In Nicklaus' day, somebody like Trevino or Miller would have been licking their chops if Jack was out for an extended period.

[Dan Herrmann]

TD - Amen to that - it's almost like today's NFL where 8-8 can get you into the playoffs and every team could be either 6-10 or 10-6 depending on a the breaks they get - good or bad.  Mediocrity is here - better learn to love it.

PS - I too really disliked the course and I think I convinced a colleague at work that the design was poor.  Gotta keep evangelizing to the world!   In this case, though, it's WWBD (What would Bobby Jones Do?)  

[George Pazin]

A.G.:

I just couldn't let this comment slip without questioning the logic.

The fact that every major is being won by a different player would indicate to me that nobody is dominant with Tiger gone ... but it does not indicate that the level of play is necessarily high.  Indeed, the fact that nobody can win more than one or two majors seems to indicate that there aren't very many real champions among them.  In Nicklaus' day, somebody like Trevino or Miller would have been licking their chops if Jack was out for an extended period.

In Nicklaus' day, there were fewer guys to beat - a lot fewer. It's that simple, really, there's no need to complicate it.

That's how it is with virtually every sport that isn't dying. More money = more incentive for people to try. There are just as many champions today - far more, in fact. Everyone in the top 20 is dying to pile up majors while Tiger is out, it's just really tough to do. For every guy that has an off week, there are 20 more to step up and take his place.

People don't change, athletes don't change - except for the better!

-----

Dan, you are confusing parity with mediocrity - they are not at all the same. If there are more great golfers, it is that much harder for any one golfer to stand out. If you like NFL analogies, go stand next to any 70s NFL great - then go stand next to a current one. Night and day. And I say that as a great fan of 70s football, often referred to as The Golden Age of Football (in Pittsburgh...).

[Joe Bausch]

And I say that as a great fan of 70s football, often referred to as The Golden Age of Football (in Pittsburgh...).

Six more Superbowl titles and the Iggles are tied with the Stillers.

 

[Phil McDade]

A.G.:

I just couldn't let this comment slip without questioning the logic.

The fact that every major is being won by a different player would indicate to me that nobody is dominant with Tiger gone ... but it does not indicate that the level of play is necessarily high.  Indeed, the fact that nobody can win more than one or two majors seems to indicate that there aren't very many real champions among them.  In Nicklaus' day, somebody like Trevino or Miller would have been licking their chops if Jack was out for an extended period.

In Nicklaus' day, there were fewer guys to beat - a lot fewer. It's that simple, really, there's no need to complicate it.

That's how it is with virtually every sport that isn't dying. More money = more incentive for people to try. There are just as many champions today - far more, in fact. Everyone in the top 20 is dying to pile up majors while Tiger is out, it's just really tough to do. For every guy that has an off week, there are 20 more to step up and take his place.

People don't change, athletes don't change - except for the better!

-----

Dan, you are confusing parity with mediocrity - they are not at all the same. If there are more great golfers, it is that much harder for any one golfer to stand out. If you like NFL analogies, go stand next to any 70s NFL great - then go stand next to a current one. Night and day. And I say that as a great fan of 70s football, often referred to as The Golden Age of Football (in Pittsburgh...).

George:

Also posted on the other thread.....

How, exactly, are:

Bob Charles, Dave Marr, Tony Lema, Bobby Nichols, Gay Brewer, Don January, Orville Moody, Charles Coody, Tommy Aaron, Tom Weiskopf, and Lou Graham -- major winners all, from 1963 through 1975 (Jack's dominant period as a player) -- that much different than:

...Justin Leonard, Paul Lawrie, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, Ben Curtis, , Todd Hamilton, Mike Weir, Zach Johnson, Michael Campbell and Trevor Immelman, all major winners from 1997 through 2008 (Tiger's dominant period as a player)?

[Kalen Braley]

A.G.:

I just couldn't let this comment slip without questioning the logic.

The fact that every major is being won by a different player would indicate to me that nobody is dominant with Tiger gone ... but it does not indicate that the level of play is necessarily high.  Indeed, the fact that nobody can win more than one or two majors seems to indicate that there aren't very many real champions among them.  In Nicklaus' day, somebody like Trevino or Miller would have been licking their chops if Jack was out for an extended period.

In Nicklaus' day, there were fewer guys to beat - a lot fewer. It's that simple, really, there's no need to complicate it.

That's how it is with virtually every sport that isn't dying. More money = more incentive for people to try. There are just as many champions today - far more, in fact. Everyone in the top 20 is dying to pile up majors while Tiger is out, it's just really tough to do. For every guy that has an off week, there are 20 more to step up and take his place.

People don't change, athletes don't change - except for the better!

-----

Dan, you are confusing parity with mediocrity - they are not at all the same. If there are more great golfers, it is that much harder for any one golfer to stand out. If you like NFL analogies, go stand next to any 70s NFL great - then go stand next to a current one. Night and day. And I say that as a great fan of 70s football, often referred to as The Golden Age of Football (in Pittsburgh...).

George:

Also posted on the other thread.....

How, exactly, are:

Bob Charles, Dave Marr, Tony Lema, Bobby Nichols, Gay Brewer, Don January, Orville Moody, Charles Coody, Tommy Aaron, Tom Weiskopf, and Lou Graham -- major winners all, from 1963 through 1975 (Jack's dominant period as a player) -- that much different than:

...Justin Leonard, Paul Lawrie, David Toms, Rich Beem, Shaun Micheel, Ben Curtis, , Todd Hamilton, Mike Weir, Zach Johnson, Michael Campbell and Trevor Immelman, all major winners from 1997 through 2008 (Tiger's dominant period as a player)?

Phil,

Fair enough....but you must do the same for the other "great" players in Nicklaus's hey-day.

How many majors did Arnie, Johnie, Player, Trevino, Floyd, etc, etc....but only in that 63-75 time period?