Forget about one week. Look at the top players in the world. Is there any doubt in your mind that the players at the top of the world rankings are not the best players in the world?
If you look at the old days of the Bob Hope Classic and the Las Vegas tournament, what you saw were all the players from 40 to 120 on the money llist playing, and any one of them was able to win in a given year (or at least finish way up the money list). It was a birdie-fest and all you had to do was hit your irons close and make putts, and the conditions were such that everyone in the field could do that. Whoever putted the best, won. Or, more likely, whoever's 7-iron - SW were most on target that week and whose putting touch was on, would win.
Long courses with firm, fast greens identify the best players, over time. Not always the best champion for one week, I'll admit. But if you look at the top ten in the toughest tournaments on the most penal, most difficult courses, you rarely see no-names creeping in.
Just like you, though: I could be wrong. :-)
Does a penal course/setup identify the best golfer?
What would happen if the next major was held at NGLA (enlarged by 10%) or Old MacDonald.
What would happen if a major was held at a course that held no fear for the players, but rather inspired strategy, boldness, and creativity?
a course where there was usually 40-100 yards of playable area.but where the real penalty was playing to the safer side of that playable area.
a course where the only fear was not playing enough inspired shots, or having enough local knowledge,rather than such obvious fears as island greens, OB, water, and inpenetrable/unfindable rough/native areas.
Does such a course identify smart play? or do narrow fairways do that?
and does a good setup identify the best player?
Or the player hitting it the best that week?
Let's leave Augusta out of the equation for now
[/quote/]
I believe that the "easier" the conditions become (i.e., wider fairways; minimal rough; softer, more receptive greens), the more anyone could win. The easier the conditions become, the more it becomes just a big putting contest, and those types of conditions do not, necessarily, identify the best golfer over time -- at least not what I would consider the best golfer.
I'm a pretty darn good golfer in "easy" conditions. The harder it gets, though, the more that truly great amateurs' games stand out over mine. They hit it farther, are stronger, and can hit it both HIGH and LOW, whereas I mainly hit a low, high-spin ball, which works best under limited course conditions (softish greens).
That's my view, anyway....
David,
I believe the exact opposite.
the tighter, more penal and scary the golf course corridors, the more often you get a random Champion.
I heard the rough was pretty thick the year Fleck won at Olympic.
Pretty tough at Medinah in '75 and Carnoustie in '99..
Conversely, They rip up TOC and used to go pretty low at ANGC (granted The Masters has a smaller field so a household name is more likely)
Pretty good champions at those places.
Thoughtful architecture and setup can produce worthy champions with excellent career credentials who use all their talents to prevail, not just a hot week with the driver.
I could be wrong though.... 