"Testing the Limits of Fairness"

[Joe_Tucholski]

Just read this month’s GD and one of the articles I enjoyed was an article by Ron Whitten about the Friday hole location on the 18th in the 1998 US Open.

Here's a youtube video that was referenced in the article:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgpL_M6wlNg

I know the hole setup has been mentioned a few times and there have been threads on the topic (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46014.0.html) but is there anyone who thinks the hole location was an acceptable hole location for the US Open (or for member play for that matter...the article says the green was changed after member complaints when the hole was placed in a similar location during the club championship).

What sort of green speed can handle 7% grade for a pin placement?  And was the dramatic shift to faster green speeds made between 1993 and 1998 because the article stated that the hole location was acceptable when used in 1987 for the US Open and 1993 for the Tour Championship?

[Matthew Essig]

I might be the weird one out, but I think it was an ACCEPTABLE hole location. Like the article said, there were 20 birdies there that day. The players had to miss in the right spots, but the couple of players who didn't put the ball in the right spots caused one of the most famous controversies in golf. The hole location on 18 was not bad, but what happened at shinnecock is a completely different story...

[Tom_Doak]

It was a bad hole location, considering the speed of the green. 

The justification for it was that they had to use the upper tier one or two days out of four, or the bottom tier would be worn out.  But it would have been fine if that green had been a bit slower.

One would think that the green would get a bit easier later in the day as the grass grows, but in practice it's usually just the opposite ... the grass is barely growing, and all the foot traffic around the hole makes it tougher for the ball to stop on a marginal slope as the day wears on, so the leaders get the worst of it on the weekend.

[David_Elvins]

What sort of green speed can handle 7% grade for a pin placement?

Joe,

I haven't read the article but are you say that they had the pin on a 7% grade at Olympic? That sounds unbelievably high.  

[D_Malley]

Tom,
do you think this could of been solved simply by not mowing the green that morning?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,
do you think this could of been solved simply by not mowing the green that morning?

Possibly ... or only mowing it once instead of two or three times.  [I don't know how many times they mowed the greens each day in '98.]

I remember in other events in that period, that some greens were mowed a bit higher than others because of the slopes.  I know this was true of a couple of greens at Medinah #3 for the US Open there that Mike Donald almost won, and for one of the events at Southern Hills, where both the ninth and eighteenth greens were too steep to be treated like the rest.  [I believe all of the greens in question have now been rebuilt and flattened, as opposed to anybody considering reducing the green speeds across the board.  The first green at Winged Foot West is now a target for changing, just as the 12th and 15th at Merion had to be changed ... and none of those were anywhere near 7%.]

Having greens deliberately at different speeds is not a great solution ... there aren't many players who can make that adjustment consciously after putting on several other greens that are faster.  But, it was probably a better solution than having a four-putt which changed the result of a tournament.

[PThomas]

in the video it is stated that the mowing practices for the green were modified

[Matthew Essig]

I thought I read that they didn't mow or roll the green that morning because the USGA knew it would get way out of hand if they did. They thought it would stay fair if they didn't, but it still got out of hand.

I am still standing by my first post, though.

[Scott Stambaugh]

I thought I read that they didn't mow or roll the green that morning because the USGA knew it would get way out of hand if they did. They thought it would stay fair if they didn't, but it still got out of hand.

I am still standing by my first post, though.

I was standing next to #18 green that Friday morning while they were prepping it or the days play. I can tell you what I saw made what happened with Payne Stewart's putt ( and others) pretty understandable. The hole location was fine. Prep to the green was far over the top. At minimum, the green was double mowed and single rolled, but then after that, they spent some time with a triplex mowing, remowing, remowing, remowing, rerolling, rerolling, etc... various areas of the green. It was not your standard back and forth practices. There was one gentleman there (not the small army it now seems to take) making the decisions. There were little to no words being spoken to the operators. He simply would point to an area of the green with the antennae of his radio and a staff member would either mow it or roll it.  There was no stimpmeter being used (although I'm not sure you could have found a flattish spot on that green to do so.)  Instead, a ball was just being dropped and it would roll out at various lengths. This must have been the way they were judging the speed, at least on #18 green. I also remember they also had two guys pushing this giant old-school roller on the front of the green/approach area as well.

Anyway, this went on for quite a while, the hole location was cut and that was it. Me and the guy who was with me that day both looked at each other and just said wow...  At the time, we were both assistant superintendents at the Monterey Peninsula Country Club, so we knew a thing or two about what we were observing...  We had never seen anything like that...

Scott

[Matthew Essig]

Quoted form the article:
"In 1998, (Tim) Moraghan recommended the green not be double-cut Friday morning, and that it not be rolled. Moraghan also had a crew thoroughly water the green before play that day. All in hopes that a hole on a steep slope of 7% would remain puttable all day.

It did not, in part because the turf was poa annua, a plant that often wilts as the day goes along. Fay appeared on the NBC telecast the next day. "It got away from us," he said. "I think in part, the elements caught up with us, too. The sun came out. The wind came up and just made it too difficult."

Said (Tom) Meeks: 'When the first group came through, I knew I was in trouble.'"

[Adam Clayman]

Nobody had the balls to say that Payne hit a poor putt. But, I will.

Somehow, this debate should be the poster boy (at least a cornerstone) for intellectual honesty, regarding the notion of fairness, the Augusta syndrome (as it relates to greens speeds) and how ego, is a destructive force.

As great a club as the O club is, it's ironic, that such an institution could have strayed so far from it's amateur athletic roots, as to give a rat's patootie about what a bunch of Pro's think. Let alone, alter their course, for them. Wouldn't good stewards, alter the course because it's the right thing to do? Not due to the whims of the day. Which is how I understand the committee culture there, works. The fact they have held onto their practices (maintenance presentation of arbitrary mow lines, and rough around bunkers) is insulting to the advanced students of the sport's fields, and proves, ignorance and, egos, are once again connected at the hip. Especially with the relatively recent changes to the areas other great courses, SFGC, And Cal Club.

Hey, but how about those burger dogs? And I'm sure they have a good soup, too. 

[Joe_Tucholski]

Two other interesting tidbits from the article.

They cut the pin back left on Thursday but before the first group arrived Tom Meeks changed the hole location because he couldn't place a ball next to the hole without it rolling downhill (the article says the 18th was to steep to take a stimpmeter reading).

It's also interesting to see the changes to the green.  During the 98 US Open it's a 7% grade.  The green was changed by John Fleming (then Supt) and during the 07 Amateur it's described as flat as a pancake.  It's now listed as a 4% grade after the work by Bill Love.

4% seems to be the current acceptable grade for "fair" pin placements.

I agree with Tom's statement that different green speeds on different greens to allow for larger slopes is less than ideal.  From Golf Architecture in America Thomas advocated an even more extreme solution with different grasses on different greens.  Both are interesting propositions in order to maintain original contours of greens (Thomas made his suggestion more as a way to allow greens in shade or different soils to survive before the science of agronomy advanced to solved many of those issues).  My gut instinct is I want consistency in green speeds.

Adam was it such a poor putt that the resulting 25 foot putt was a reasonable result?  Could the putt have been a good putt without going in the hole?  If it was possible to make a good putt that did not go in the hole where would such a putt come to rest?

[Adam Clayman]

Joe, The answer to your question is yes, it warranted the result he received.  It's counter intuitive, where the miss is, it's above the hole. Missing on the low side is what made it poor.

[Sean_A]

I can't see how this even debatable.  There is absolutely no question that whatever whoever did to create that situation made the hole stupid on the day.  It is exactly situations like that which get greens altered to be flatter.  So not only was it stupid, it was harmful for the future of cool greens.  Golf is not a game of anything goes no matter how wild you like your golf.

Ciao

[JESII]

Golf is not a game of anything goes no matter how wild you like your golf.

Ciao

But it could be...it simply takes balls.

[Joel_Stewart]

Joe, The answer to your question is yes, it warranted the result he received.  It's counter intuitive, where the miss is, it's above the hole. Missing on the low side is what made it poor.

True considering he was only hitting wedge into the hole.

The other fact that was not mentioned is the USGA didn't have any other options for a pin except where a pin would be for a previous or future day.  I read somewhere they didn't want to have it again on the lower level and the Sunday pin spot could not be used.

[Matthew Essig]

I just want to throw out the stat that there were 20 birdies on the hole that day again. If it was truly unfair, I am sure there would not have been 20 birdies. I think there were a half a dozen holes at the Wells Fargo tournament that only had 5 or less birdies. Were these holes unfair? NO. Let us assume there is 160 players in the us open. That means 1 out of every 8 players made birdie that day. I am going to state my position again. The hole location was perfectly fine. If you want to talk about something being UNFAIR, let us talk about 7 at shinnecock. But i don't want to jack the thread, so let's not talk about it...   

[Tom_Doak]

I just want to throw out the stat that there were 20 birdies on the hole that day again. If it was truly unfair, I am sure there would not have been 20 birdies. I think there were a half a dozen holes at the Wells Fargo tournament that only had 5 or less birdies. Were these holes unfair? NO. Let us assume there is 160 players in the us open. That means 1 out of every 8 players made birdie that day. I am going to state my position again. The hole location was perfectly fine. If you want to talk about something being UNFAIR, let us talk about 7 at shinnecock. But i don't want to jack the thread, so let's not talk about it...   

Matthew:

I don't worry about "fair" very much in relation to golf [or to life!].  But, if the hole was giving up birdies to guys who hit a good shot, and double-bogeys to guys who missed by ten feet ... you are calling that perfectly fine?

[jeffwarne]

Now I hate the word fair, but.....
I thought what they did to Shinny was a joke (it's already great and doesn't need "defense"

At Olympic whether or not the pin on 18 was "reasonable" is not proven by how many birdies there were.
If a player has a 10 footer UPHILL and the only way to stop it is to make it, a number of birdies will be made(even from above the hole), but there will also be a number of excellent putts that roll right back to one's feet.
I've played Golden Ages courses in Pro-Ams/Pro-Members where they used a challenging pin but had the greens so "amped" (to show off that they could) that a ball can't be stopped near a difficult pin from any angle without going in.
The only way to walk off a green like that is to make a 10 footer---I've seen 7 and 8 putts in that situation.


Watch the U tube vide of players putiing UPHILLL and the ball rolling back.
Sure you could make the birdie putt, but what if you didn't?
Pairing Scott's Stambaugh eyewitness account with David Fay's bumbling explanation is laughable.

Adam,
Do you think Payne could've stopped the ball nearer the cup without making it?
If he hits it a bit higher it gathers even more speed (great as long as it goes in)
and the guys putting it uphill that had it roll back? What kind've putt were they supposed to hit?
a Triplett?

[Tom_Doak]

I thought I read that they didn't mow or roll the green that morning because the USGA knew it would get way out of hand if they did. They thought it would stay fair if they didn't, but it still got out of hand.

I am still standing by my first post, though.

I was standing next to #18 green that Friday morning while they were prepping it or the days play. I can tell you what I saw made what happened with Payne Stewart's putt ( and others) pretty understandable. The hole location was fine. Prep to the green was far over the top. At minimum, the green was double mowed and single rolled, but then after that, they spent some time with a triplex mowing, remowing, remowing, remowing, rerolling, rerolling, etc... various areas of the green. It was not your standard back and forth practices. There was one gentleman there (not the small army it now seems to take) making the decisions. There were little to no words being spoken to the operators. He simply would point to an area of the green with the antennae of his radio and a staff member would either mow it or roll it.  There was no stimpmeter being used (although I'm not sure you could have found a flattish spot on that green to do so.)  Instead, a ball was just being dropped and it would roll out at various lengths. This must have been the way they were judging the speed, at least on #18 green. I also remember they also had two guys pushing this giant old-school roller on the front of the green/approach area as well.

Anyway, this went on for quite a while, the hole location was cut and that was it. Me and the guy who was with me that day both looked at each other and just said wow...  At the time, we were both assistant superintendents at the Monterey Peninsula Country Club, so we knew a thing or two about what we were observing...  We had never seen anything like that...

Scott

Scott:

Thanks for that eyewitness account.

The USGA was also lying about their setup of Shinnecock in 2004 ... they were out there rolling the green under the lights at night, much more than what they said after the debacle.  I know, because I saw them doing it on Wednesday night, and wondered what the hell they were thinking.

[Tom_Doak]

4% seems to be the current acceptable grade for "fair" pin placements.

Joe:

They generally try to use no more than 3% on a green, unless they can't find four hole locations that work at 3% or less.  The PGA Tour wants the max to be 2.25%.

When the green was rebuilt after the last Open, they made the back part very flat, no more than 2%.  It took all the teeth out of the hole.  I didn't know they had redone it, but if the back part of the green is really 4%, the players had better not miss above the hole ...

[JESII]

Jeff Warne,

Did any balls actually roll back to someone's feet?

Tom Doak,

Did any of those missed 10 footers really make double bogey?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff Warne,

Did any balls actually roll back to someone's feet?

Tom Doak,

Did any of those missed 10 footers really make double bogey?

Jim,
watch the U-Tube video.
Putts (daly, Triplett) go straight uphill ,stop, and then reverse direction.
I can't say that any balls actually rolled back to one's feet in that event (although Triplett's might've if he'd let it )
Surely you can't defend what happened to Payne's ball.

I once won a pro-am where I had a 15 footer straight uphill roll back to my feet. I then made the next identical putt for par.
the guy who finished second by a shot 5 putted from the same place, making  the same 15 footer I had made.

[Matthew Essig]

I understand everything you guys are saying, but if the hole location was bad in the previous open and the tour championship held there, do you not think the pros would have known about how treacherous the spot is and played for it.

Plus, every player plays to the same cup, so they all had to deal with the spot.

[JESII]

I did watch it Jeff.

I think, and thought then, Payne Stewart hit a bad putt.

FWIW, I've never been there but that is nowhere near a 7% slope immediately around the hole.