Bashing Major Venues

[Mike Hendren]

Strategy in the professional game is nearly obsolete.  I say nearly - when was the last time you saw a major champion drive the green on a par four?  Props to the PGA for moving the tee up.  

Widen the fairways and these guys shoot zero.  Narrowing the fairways is losing its luster - if they're going to miss the fairway, why lay up and have 190 in when they can bomb away and hit wedge from the rough, which both players did on 16 yesterday.  

The only remaining defenses are wind, and ridiculous pin placements that cannot be short-sided.  

Oak Hill and Olympia Fields appear to be very good golf courses - on television.  I suspect they are even better when played.  

I cannot fathom anyone being bored by yesterday's finish with back-to-back two shot swings down the stretch and the champion birdieing two of the last three when the over/under would have been 2 over for that stretch.  

Short of alternating the PGA and Open between Pebble Beach and Shinnecock and absent any control over the ball, what would all you naysayers DO - at Oak Hill or anywhere else?

Micheel was brilliant.  Sometimes the jockey is more important than the condition or length of the track.

Mike  

[A.G._Crockett]

There are going to be times where the greatest players in the world shoot the lights out in a major championship under any kind of reasonable course setup; it has always been thus.

I agree that the two-shot swings late in the day added somewhat to the drama.  However, the foreknowledge that absolutely nobody in the field had any chance on that golf course under that setup to shoot a great number and make a charge on Sunday had already killed the drama of the event.  I would suspect that when the ratings of TV viewing come out, that will be confirmed.  I'm not advocating setting up major championship venues based on TV ratings, but this was absurd.

Palmer at Cherry Hills, Miller at Oakmont;  these are the kinds of things that live in golf lore and bring people to the game.  Other than Micheel's final 7 iron, where was that sort of possibility in this golf tournament?  It didn't exist, that's where!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Hendren,

For many years, the saying was, that The Masters starts on the back nine on Sunday.

There was a history of gallant charges and dismal collapses that added to the thrill of watching the tournament at a venue where TV has made us feel that it is our home course.

My take on the back nines at the other Majors is:
Survival of the fitest.

Just look at the scores of the top 6 finishers at the British Open this year.

Like PRO Tennis, golf is falling into the abyss of the power game, losing all of the variety in shotmaking.

But, the horse is out of the barn and no one knows how to get him back in.

[John Nixon]

But don't major final round collapses also live on in golf lore? I knew going into the final round yesterday that no one was likely to make a charge, HOWEVER, there was a real possibility that most of the leaders, unproven entities other than Weir, would collapse and open the door for a dramatic finish. In terms of TV drama and appeal, I don't think a negative movement by the leaders is any less attractive than a positive move by a challenger. As it was, Micheel and Campbell held up pretty well. BUt the possibility was always there for a big big score on any given hole. Plenty of drama for my purposes.

[DMoriarty]

Mike,

I agree that the finish was exciting and I too am glad that they included a reachable par 4 (although 322 put some of them between clubs!)

But there is a difference between an exciting tournament finish and interesting golf.  We saw almost no variety of shots and very few decisions to be made, except for how hard to try and hit it.  The interest in the tournament was defined by two major factors:  1) Avoiding the rough, and 2) Getting lucky in the rough and still being able to advance the ball.   I just dont find golf which relies on these two factors to be all that interesting.  

So what would I do at major tournament venues?

1)  Most importantly, play at courses with more interesting green complexes, so angle of approach would matter more, and so golfers would face more of a variety of short shots when they missed.

2)  Drastically widen the fairways so the golfers would have to choose their angle of approach, then execute.

3)  Accept that under benign conditions the best golfers in the world are going to shoot below par, and enjoy it.

[Darren_Kilfara]

A.G., that's a bit of revisionist history, don't you think? Palmer's "charge" at Cherry Hills consisted of basically doing what Micheel did at the 14th hole (trying to drive the green on a long par 4), except at the first hole, and otherwise hitting good iron shots and making putts. Palmer won because he executed well; if Mike Weir or Ernie Els had played well, they easily could have shot 67 or 68 and put all the heat on Micheel and Campbell, but they didn't. Are you going to blame the golf course for that? (As for Miller, he shot a low number at Oakmont because the course was soaked with rain, wasn't it?)

Now, as for Oak Hill being strategic (or not)...well, any course with thick rough is automatically more strategic than the same course without thick rough, because it makes you choose between an ~80% chance of finding the fairway with a long iron and a ~50% chance of finding the fairway with a driver - and nine times out of ten, missing the fairway actually means something. (It should be said that Micheel played some incredibly smart, well-executed shots out of the rough when he found it, although in fairness he seemed to draw a higher proportion of decent lies than he might have expected.) Of course, in either case the result is down to execution, but this IS the sort of decision-making that wears down the pros over the course of 72 holes.

Really, at the end of the day I think there's only so much blame you can pin on the golf course and/or architecture. This was a week where the big guns failed to raise their game, whereas a quartet of lesser lights did. That can and does happen at many major championship golf courses. Also, you could argue that because more "no-names" have won the PGA in the past, it's an easier major for other lesser players to withstand the pressure (or rather, convince themselves that the amount of pressure is less) and win.

Cheers,
Darren

[Don_Mahaffey]

How mant times did we see a player hit it in the rough and then try and curve the ball around a tree in an effort to hit it on the green? Zero, pitch out after pitch. How many times did we see a player weigh his options when faced with a delicate chip around the green? Zero, one option only. I'm sorry, but if this is the set-ups we can expect, even Augusta is headed down this road, I'd rather watch auto racing. At least there someone is sure to try one pass.

[Mike Hendren]

A.G.,

All I know is that two players shot 66 in the first round and, unlike the predictions of all the pundits, the course did not appear to get appreciably harder each day, though I suspect it did.  

I haven't looked into Miller's Oakmont win, but Palmers final round at Cherry Hills would have been just another round if Souchak hadn't need 75 strokes and Finsterwald and Boros 73 each that day.  At the time nobody yet knew to be afraid of Jack and Hogan was finished when he dumped his ball into the water at 17.  It was not the course - it was the jockey, Arnold at his best.  

Micheel's 70 was a tremendous round.  If he and Campbell start gagging a few of the top ten would have been right there if they had shot 68 as Perry and Fasth did.  

Patrick,

Ask yourself:  Why did Micheel win the PGA?  Why did Weir win The Masters?  Each won with the flat stick.  Statistically, Micheel was average driving the ball and hit only two of every three greens.  The short game is the great equalizer - just as it has always been.

If you guys wanted thrills, all you had to do was watch the X-Games on ABC last night.  Dude

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

Dave, you wrote:

2)  Drastically widen the fairways so the golfers would have to choose their angle of approach, then execute.

I am astonished at the extent to which the erudite on this site fail to grasp how good these players are.  

In 1973 my father took me to my first professional golf tournament, the Danny Thomas Memphis Classic.  He insisted that we spend some time at the driving range.  I was amazed as I watched some journeyman pro hit pitching wedges to his caddy, who rarely moved more than a couple of steps to stab them with his first baseman's mit.  That was thirty years ago!

Personally, give me a 310 yards drive in the fairway and the worst conceivable approach angle and I would be a happy man.

Mike

[A.G._Crockett]

Darren
I don't think its revisionist history at all!  This is especially true of Miller's round, where a myth has arisen that his 63 was due to rain the night before.  I think its correct that there was only one other round in the 60's on that Sunday, and I think maybe only 3 or 4 players under par for the day.  There was less likelihood of somebody shooting 63 yesterday to lap the field than of you or I getting a sponsor's exemption to Augusta next April!

Nixer
I disagree about the chances for collapse yesterday, at least in terms of players making huge numbers.  As Don Mahaffey says, players who hit into the rough off the tee were given one option only;  get back in play.  This made for LOTS of bogeys, but very little likelihood of any big numbers.  Micheel got a great bounce off the tee on 18, but if that ball goes in the rough, he's going to make bogey (in all probability) rather than any higher number.  BTW, if it goes in the rough it also eliminates any chance of a decision by him to try to make birdie.  That's just not very exciting to watch, and that's what the entire tournament was.

Patrick
I agree that the horse is out of the barn and nobody can figure out how to put him back.  I still think, though, that there is a pretty fair range of possibilities between the course setups that we see in some of the birdie-fest tour events and what we watched this weekend.  It just doesn't have to be all or nothing!  As has been discussed here so many times, the problem is the attachment to the concept of "par".

[John Nixon]

A.G. - you're right, I suppose I was thinking more of a gradual, bogey by bogey cumulative collapse.

[Rick Shefchik]

The PGA ought to yield a lower winning score than -4. The courses used for the PGA championship are solid, time-tested tracks; nobody would confuse Oak Hill with Indian Wells. There's no reason to take an already difficult course like Oak Hill and turn it into a typical U.S. Open torture chamber, nor is there any reason to fear that shorter rough and wider fairways would turn the PGA Championship into the August version of the Bob Hope.

It's the dog chasing its tail -- the equipment is so much better that the course set-ups are made increasingly more penal, and then the equipment improves even more, etc. The way to get the horse back into the barn is to reign in the equipment, but in the meantime, let these guys score on a great course, at least at the PGA. Bring some excitement back to the game.

[A.G._Crockett]

Darren and Mike
Re Palmer's round at Cherry Hills:  an article I just looked up indicated that Palmer was 7 shots off the lead at the beginning of the round, and had to pass 14 players (including Hogan and Nicklaus) to win.  (This according to quick research--sorry I don't have time to find more details)

That sort of charge yesterday would have been utterly out of the question, and that IS something that you can blame on the golf course, or more specifically, the setup.  That's a pity for the game of golf, and as this becomes the norm, it will hurt the game as much a Palmer helped it.

[A_Clay_Man]

Back to the architecture, we've been blessed(cursed?) with seeing what is clearly the widest of spectrums in these last two majors. From the bounce and roll of RSg to this cabbage patch golf. While yesterday, the ground did firm up a bit there seemed to be few huge(as to outcome) bounces. The biggest of which was that slight kick to the right on Micheel's drive on 18 which put him in the first cut versus the cabbage.

Someone noticed that noone was finding the bunkers at Oak Hill, could it be because they were surrounded by sillia of the velcro variety?

It did seem that alot of those bunkers and slopes of same, rarely got to show their teeth, or character, in the way that makes for the karmic bounce, that makes for excitement and justice in golf, and probably closer to the way Ross may have originally designed.

[DMoriarty]

I am astonished at the extent to which the erudite on this site fail to grasp how good these players are.  

In 1973 my father took me to my first professional golf tournament, the Danny Thomas Memphis Classic.  He insisted that we spend some time at the driving range.  I was amazed as I watched some journeyman pro hit pitching wedges to his caddy, who rarely moved more than a couple of steps to stab them with his first baseman's mit.  That was thirty years ago!

Personally, give me a 310 yards drive in the fairway and the worst conceivable approach angle and I would be a happy man.

And I am astonished that you would mention the erudite on this site in a post addressed to me.   You might have hit on it, though.  I guess I just dont think they are as good as some on this board do.  For example,  I dont think they are good enough to back a ball up on aportion of a green that which significantly away from the golfer.  

Moreover,  I dont care.  On a strategic course played by great golfers, the one who makes the best decisions and executes will beat the one who just trys to play the same two shots down the middle (and executes.)  So what if they are both under par?  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mike,
You know for me, watching golf on television is like playing it with blinders on. You only can really see them play one style of play, and you know if a ball went right or left by how they finish as well as how they react. Yes, you can see if the ball goes right or left too, but how many times have you been fooled, like I have, that it ended up where it did?

This is where I agree with David, you can't see the type of play because of TV as well as that they aren't playing much different other then trying to hold on to dear life by hitting it straight everytime. Shouldn't a cut be rewarded, or a low running draw, or the proper fly of the ball a hill or down? How is a Major tournament supposed to produce the best champion, the one that stayed out of the rough, or the one that utilized ever aspect of his game from driving, approach shots, chipping and putting good enough to win?

To me, Nikita Kruschev Golf (We will bury you) is not my idea of producing the best champion simply because he hung on. I too am glad such an upstanding good individual as Micheel won, but where has he been in the Masters, US Open and British Opens this year, as well as the rest of his career?

All of the results of this years Major unknown champions is the result of course set-up. I'm not taking away from the fact that they have talent in anyway, but are they the best? Do you think every aspect of Tiger Woods game is less then Sean Micheel?  What about Ernie Els and Sean Micheel?  

When I see what looks to be these really great placed Donald Ross bunkers and the use of the hills and dales he so well included in most of his designs, and where they are actually "safe areas" in the deep rough grass, and are totally oppostie of how they were intended, something's wrong.

Is it bashing? No! It is an opinion, and to further my strong opinion, until we realize that the Game is spiraling out of control, and have a Sanctioning Body that wants to futher prevent it, the Game is coming to a crashing stop not unlike Tennis.

[Mike Hendren]

I hear ya Tommy.  But, long gone are the days when Tom Paul's daddy took a few yards off by hitting a soft cut and added a couple with a hard draw!

Show me a guy who can hit the ball where he's aiming and I'll show you a darn good player.  I'm with Pat Mucci  - wind is the only defense remaining.  

The object of the game is not to work the ball (I am astonished by how frequently good players get "too cute" by trying to work the ball when they don't need to), but to get it in the hole in the fewest number of strokes.  

Okay, let me try another take.  I recall a Twilight Zone episode where a gambler died and went to heaven, where he promptly won every hand played.  This got old and he realized he was not in heaven, but in Hades.  Similarly, it can't possibly be any fun to execute one shot after another like the professionals do, but winning is what it's all about.   The endearing thing about the game to me is what the heck is going to happen next and how will I react.  I don't win many hands anymore, but I'm amused either way.

Kindest regards,

Mike

[cary lichtenstein]

The masters used to begin on the back nine on Sunday, but not anymore. They ruined the most exciting tournament. Eagles and birdies used to rain supreme. Anyone remember Nicklaus, Miller and Weiskoppf one year when they were shooting lights out and the roars were defeaning, and everyone was backing off?

Those days are gone.

What is wrong with guys shooting low scores?

I would love to play Augusta, but not from the new pro tees, but from the old pro tees.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Darren and Mike
Re Palmer's round at Cherry Hills:  an article I just looked up indicated that Palmer was 7 shots off the lead at the beginning of the round, and had to pass 14 players (including Hogan and Nicklaus) to win.  (This according to quick research--sorry I don't have time to find more details)

That sort of charge yesterday would have been utterly out of the question, and that IS something that you can blame on the golf course, or more specifically, the setup.  That's a pity for the game of golf, and as this becomes the norm, it will hurt the game as much a Palmer helped it.

A.G., I'll defer to your better memories of Miller/Oakmont than mine, but the above isn't true as such - it is in perception, but not so much in reality. What's the difference between a) one guy shooting 63 when the leader shoots 70, on a day when the average score is 70, and b) one guy shooting 67 when the leader shoots 74, on a day when the average score is 74? Answer: nothing, really, except that the golf might look a little different.

My point is to say that Micheel played really well yesterday to shoot 70, and THAT is what won him the golf tournament - a couple of guys chasing him shot 69s, but under the circumstances that wasn't good enough. If the leader at Oakmont all those years ago (don't ask me who he was) had shot 68, then Miller's comeback would have fallen short, just as Palmer would have fallen short had Souchak managed to shoot par or thereabouts one afternoon at Cherry Hills in 1960. Everyone wants more drama at majors than we had yesterday...well, drama in sports isn't something that can be scripted. For one guy to rally from a huge deficit, the guy in front ultimately has to let him, because if the guy in front plays anywhere near as well as the guy behind does, we all know who's going to win. And that's what Micheel did - he made pars when the rest of the field needed him to make bogeys (because it wasn't making birdies).

Point being: don't blame the golf course. Blame the Weirs and Elses who could have played to their potential and won. Or blame Shaun Micheel, who played far better than anyone could have expected (I mean, 69-68-69-70? On that course?) and thereby sucked the drama out of the occasion. Drama can come from the leader making bogeys just as surely as it can come from the trailers making birdies...the latter is usually more exciting, but the former usually involves more pathos.

Cheers,
Darren

[A.G._Crockett]

Darren,
After I left work today, I went and hit balls at the range.  As I contemplated how difficult it is to hit a golf ball straight, I felt badly about posts by me today that might be construed as meaning that Shaun Micheel is not a deserving champion, or that his victory is somehow tainted.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

I think the tournament lacked drama from the middle of the second round through the end, because there was no feeling that anyone could mount a charge on that golf course.  That IS the fault of the committee that set the course up, though not of the golf course itself.

You are correct that if the leader going into the 4th round at Cherry Hills had played really well, Palmer's round wouldn't have mattered.  However, passing 14 players on the last day IS remarkable (since it is safe to assume that not ALL of the 14 played poorly), and I don't think any such thing could have happened yesterday.  The course was simply too penal to allow it.  That doesn't taint Micheel's championship; it also isn't good for golf.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Hendren,

Noone said these guys weren't good.
Often, I've refered to them as the greatest players in the world, but, the game has become:
Hit the bowling alley fairway, hit the green with a short iron no matter how long the hole, and putt better then the others guys doing the same thing.

Quassi,

You're wrong about The Masters.

The weather had something to do with this year's conditions and scoring.  The back nine remains an exciting nine where birdies and eagles are easily within the range of the players.

What did Sarazen hit into the green when he made his famous double eagle:

A short iron
A medium iron
A long iron
A wood

The new tees, especially on # 13 are an attempt to bring back longer approaches.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Well said David and Don M's respectively. I find the PGA and USGA have taken the architecture out of very good courses over and over again. This leads into the Reesdom discussions.  I do find the current problems with distance may also take the architecture out of a great course too. If one is hitting a wedge or 9 iron to a 460 par 4 then the angle becomes alot less important. I am with you guys and 2 years ago I was totally with you. However his year the distance problem has transended the poor course setup strategy of the USGA regarding the value of strategy to the game.