[Erik J. Barzeski]

I thought it was astounding that Tommy Fleetwood and his caddie talked themselves into playing a fade into the 18th green, reasoning the right to left wind would hold the shot more or less on line.  This decision was  made immediately after Brendan Steele tried the exact same thing and lost it right into the water.  Fleetwood needed a birdie to get into a playoff, but it seems he was trying for eagle to win, and the margin of error for the selected shot was really small.  Not only that, Fleetwood has a most reliable draw that he had played beautifully all week long.

Going for the green in two presented the best opportunity to make birdie. If he lays up, he's probably only about 10% or so to make birdie.

I admire that he went for the tie/win.

Is it the case that the landing areas are smaller than the dispersion patterns of the required shots?

Yes, that's accurate.

[jeffwarne]

I thought it was astounding that Tommy Fleetwood and his caddie talked themselves into playing a fade into the 18th green, reasoning the right to left wind would hold the shot more or less on line.  This decision was  made immediately after Brendan Steele tried the exact same thing and lost it right into the water.  Fleetwood needed a birdie to get into a playoff, but it seems he was trying for eagle to win, and the margin of error for the selected shot was really small.  Not only that, Fleetwood has a most reliable draw that he had played beautifully all week long.

Going for the green in two presented the best opportunity to make birdie. If he lays up, he's probably only about 10% or so to make birdie.

I admire that he went for the tie/win.

Is it the case that the landing areas are smaller than the dispersion patterns of the required shots?

Yes, that's accurate.

I admire that he went for the win as well-or at least the tie.
John,
I don't think the shot he attempted had much smaller of a margin for error than any other shot at PGA National-he just didn't execute.
If he hits a draw he's hitting it over the water and riding the wind-lots of risk and the ball still ends up over the green if he executes it.He only had 238 which is probably too much for a 5 wood wind riding shot and the firm green coupled with the wind make stopping it nearly impossible.
I liked the shot he attempted-I'm sure he felt the wind would counteract any fade and hold the ball up.
He just missed it by a lot- A risk well worth taking for a great ball striker like Fleetwood .

[Dave McCollum]

I used to look at this course and think "who would want to play there?  Terrible course."


My opinion evolved to "yeah, the right golfers--the best in the world--are playing the right course."


Of course, what happens the other 51 weeks a year?  Terrible course.   

[V. Kmetz]

Watching yesterday made me think it was the final round of the US Open where they were identifying the luckiest player, rather than the best player. Having said that, it was good tv, if you like watching pain, suffering and failed execution.

...a little bit, yes... I like those things... much more than I like -18, -20, -23 or more, and win by 3. It was a bogey-3-putt-hit the tree fest of a weekend at Riviera two weeks ago and everyone seemed to be fine with it because the field in pursuit was stellar. Plus many (including myself) who love Riviera (prolly my personal Top 5 of plays) love it for its rigor, along with its beauty and appealing "asks."


To me, it's the lesser field and the evolution of this week, the beginning of Florida swing, to a place of lesser prestige and season-influencing buzz... the loss of Doral (and its field) and the slightest dimunition of the Palmer (without  Arnie's presence for going on four years) are not well compensated by the better showing of Valspar and the TV/Tour gods insistence on marketing such a curated golf environment ("Bear Trap" "Phoenix 16" etc).


Lastly, I played this course 37 years ago and watched a Met Winter series on it (these are BOTH way before the modern iteration) and my most enduring memory/critique is that you rarely get an elevated or broad perspectove on anything you're shooting... e.g. you can't see the penalty/hazard boundries/green margins... it's one thing to cleave away from menacing water, but quite another to discern just where that water is around the mass of tiny stakes at eye level 240 yards out.  Of course, TV covers those gaps for the viewer, but its one reason the visiting player finds it a meh course despite the heroic challenges/fails.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I have a question about the design credit for the course.

Fazio designed the course. In 2014, from what I've read, Jack Nicklaus resurfaced and expanded some greens (all greens, perhaps), removed some trees, and made some other changes.

So why is the course described as "redesigned"? Was the routing changed? If Jack did change 15-17, the "Bear Trap," did he also materially change other holes?

Who should the "designer" be? Fazio? Should Jack be credited with a "renovation" and not a "redesign"?

[jeffwarne]

Watching yesterday made me think it was the final round of the US Open where they were identifying the luckiest player, rather than the best player. Having said that, it was good tv, if you like watching pain, suffering and failed execution.

...a little bit, yes... I like those things... much more than I like -18, -20, -23 or more, and win by 3. It was a bogey-3-putt-hit the tree fest of a weekend at Riviera two weeks ago and everyone seemed to be fine with it because the field in pursuit was stellar. Plus many (including myself) who love Riviera (prolly my personal Top 5 of plays) love it for its rigor, along with its beauty and appealing "asks."


To me, it's the lesser field and the evolution of this week, the beginning of Florida swing, to a place of lesser prestige and season-influencing buzz... the loss of Doral (and its field) and the slightest dimunition of the Palmer (without  Arnie's presence for going on four years) are not well compensated by the better showing of Valspar and the TV/Tour gods insistence on marketing such a curated golf environment ("Bear Trap" "Phoenix 16" etc).

Amazing what an effect changing the par on 2 par 5 holes can have on the lore and luster of an event.
-14 and the world yawns...
-6 and it's the topic of every interview....
The USGA jumped the shark on this 30 years ago...


Very good points about the loss of Doral(where I taught for 10 years) and its field. The former Blue Monster was the quinessential Florida event-if the wind blew it was brutal, if not, they shot lights out.The resort guest could get around with the exception of a few iconic, memorable holes.(hence the name "Blue Monster"-which it really wasn't)
I guess it never occurred to them to just make 1 and 10 par 4's......who knew it was so simple..?


When you put water and OB(condos no less) on EVERY hole, and every hole is one swing from a double(or x for the guest)
How does one remember the holes?
I think it was Stewart Cink that said "they should just move the Bear Trap sign to the first tee"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()