[John Kavanaugh]

A buddy cashes a check from Digest and the mantra becomes soft receptive greens that make great players happy. Sorry if I'm not getting on board.

[BCowan]

I think archies or armchairs have to review and explain F&F.  I love F&F with bold greens running at 9.  Others think F&F is, firm with greens running at 12.  

The other question as it relates to Mike's firmness scale is does a course such as Muirfield Village play well at a firmness of 10 (assuming weather yields F&F conditions?  Does the architecture meld well to that firmness, that many Golden age course do?  IMO, no.  

IMO a great course with reasonable green speeds can never be too rock hard!

Also 40 years ago pro's were using 48-50 deg PWs.  what are they using now?  

[Don Mahaffey]

We're not talking about speed, we're talking about firmness. It would appear that you believe that we should control how hard the greens get. To do that, we have to soften them up, or keep the rollers and mowers off of them...or water....whatever. 
Of course we have been managing firmness for decades and most often it is done with the application of water often in excess of what the grass plant requires.  I think it a good discussion that if we have to do that to get proper playability, should we be discussing the design?

Don, I am trying to understand your point in this quote and in your other posts, but I am not sure I do.  I always thought that historically and at less sophisticated courses water was/is added in excess of the minimal requirement at least in part as a matter of caution or a buffer, so as to provide insurance that the grass won't die. Is this not accurate?

Rather than intentionally "softening" greens for every day play, isn't it possible that some courses are more likely to flirt with extreme, cutting edge conditions for a tournament and that those conditions are too close to the edge for every day play?  Think of the last US Open at Shinnecock for example.  

David,
My point is, water is used to make greens more "playable" all the time. And it has long been criticized here, and for good reason IMO. But, if you have to add extra water to adjust soil conditions as it relates to playability not agronomy, should we open the course to a design discussion...ie... room to use the ground to get the ball close to the target. Or, is it just a set up/maint question in that the caretakers should know how much water to add to the soil to get the ball to behave properly?

[Josh Bills]

To me this sounds a lot like the talk by Michelson, Poulter and others about how dry and difficult the conditions were at Muirfield in 2013.  In the end, the firm greens created more unpredictability, but no less a great Open Championship nor did anyone claim an inferior design.  I think the players were whining about the difficult pin locations too.  I don't think anyone would not show up for the Open, because it is too firm and dry, but understand the concerns for the LPGA event.  I'm sure there is a point where too firm requires a different design, but to change what MacKenzie or any other great ODG did for one tournament would be shortsighted.  Let the greens run a little slower or put the pins in reasonable places, or do they not want the LPGA players to go too far under par.   

Mike appreciate your candor and insight on the podcast, thank you. 

Josh

[Tommy Naccarato]

A buddy cashes a check from Digest and the mantra becomes soft receptive greens that make great players happy. Sorry if I'm not getting on board.

Its a matter of whose opinion your going to trust. The buddy whose paycheck is from Golf Digest or the buddy whose paychecks come from the State of Illinois and Indiana!  {Touch'e!)

[Don Mahaffey]

A buddy cashes a check from Digest and the mantra becomes soft receptive greens that make great players happy. Sorry if I'm not getting on board.

Its a matter of whose opinion your going to trust. The buddy whose paycheck is from Golf Digest or the buddy whose paychecks come from the State of Illinois and Indiana!  {Touch'e!)

Tommy, where does Geoff place the blame for the perceived regression of #10? On the podcast he seemed to focus on the set up guys (tour staff) and maintenance guys. I have a hard time believing that a rouge greenkeeper can impact a tour event in this day and age. And with tools that measure soil moisture, temp, firmness, and God knows what else, I have to believe the course was set up and playing exactly as dialed in by the tour staff.
Didn't Riviera play exactly the way the tour and club wanted it to play?

[Tommy Naccarato]

Don, I do believe that is exactly what Geoff was saying, that it was in the hands of who was setting it up. He isn't blaming the conditioning it, because their simply following orders..... (FWIW, I haven't heard the podcast yet but know of how crazy it got out there. What was it, a 4.24 average on a 318 yard hole?!?!?!

That is ridiculous and isn't in the spirit of the truest creativity of that particular hole design and the definition of what a half-par means in design terms.  If Superintendents have to continue to live up to that benchmark, the sport is in even deeper trouble!

Simply put, the hole can be driven or played for an eagle or birdie or better. If a player walks off with anything more, its meant to be so that the player is talking to himself, angry and frustrated with himself that he took four or worse on a hole that he's capable of scoring on, thus distancing himself one or two strokes better in the stroke play game. In the match play game, the hole brings into effect for the ability of the short knocker or "Rabbit" to compete with the "Tiger" (In Architectural Side of Golf terms)

How many of you would love to see a modern day Paul Runyan compete and win against the longest hitters in the the professional ranks and win with an incredible short game on tour?!?!?!

Something, anything to cure the boredom of what its become!

[John Kavanaugh]

These are the actual stats from the 2015 Northern Trust Open. You can see how perfectly the 10th played. http://espn.go.com/golf/stats/hole/_/tournament/2236

[Don Mahaffey]

These are the actual stats from the 2015 Northern Trust Open. You can see how perfectly the 10th played. http://espn.go.com/golf/stats/hole/_/tournament/2236

IMO, for it to play perfectly, the bogeys and birdies need to cancel out (they almost did) and the doubles and eagles need to cancel out. (18 DB to 2 eagles).
The disparity between DB and eagle doesn't seem right on that hole. 

[John Kavanaugh]

I like that there are more than twice as many birdies as any other par 4 while leading the field in others. A hole where you don't win a tournament but may lose it.  Please also note the playoff where the only player forced to hit driver became the eventual winner. The proverbial Rabbit so to speak.

I don't know who could have watched that tournament and got bored.

[DMoriarty]

IMO, for it to play perfectly, the bogeys and birdies need to cancel out (they almost did) and the doubles and eagles need to cancel out. (18 DB to 2 eagles).
The disparity between DB and eagle doesn't seem right on that hole.  

With respect, Don, the idea that you can determine whether this hole plays "perfectly" based on the balance between birdies and bogeys seems more than a bit doctrinaire.   What makes you think that a balance of birdies and bogeys makes the hole perfect?  Does your logic apply to all holes, or just this one?

I trust we agree that the hole has always been a great hole, so for context here are the numbers from the 2004 tournament.

Eagles:     3  (0.68 %)
Birdies: 134  (30.32 %)
Pars:     265  (59.95 %)
Bogeys:   37  (8.37 %)
Doubles:   2   (0.45 %)
Others:     1   (0.23 %)

As you can see, there were over 3.5 times as many birdies than bogies that year.   So was it a bad hole then?  A worse hole?   I'd say no.   I'd say it was the same hole, only this year they tricked up the green and green surrounds to make holding the green from 40 feet a dicey proposition.   I am not sure them having done so took the hole to "perfection."

[Don Mahaffey]

Doctronaire? Funny coming from you
When tour players are making double from 40 yards out, I can only imagine what I'd make. I played that hole at least 20 times and thought about it from the drive up from Orange County to standing on the tee and the feeling was never fear. What I saw this year didn't look like fun.  Stats aside, I don't think the hole plays as well now as it did 10-20 years ago. Like Geoff said in the podcast, it is a set up reaction to how far the ball goes and I don't think they got it right. That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it.

[DMoriarty]

No need for petty insults, Don.  Such things should be beneath you.

I agree with Geoff's take on this year's setup as well.

[Sean_A]

Mike C

I reckon I fall into the camp of greens being as firm as nature allows...no more feed than necessary.  Its the design which should match the achievable ideal conditions.  In the golf world, we have for far too long matched the conditions to the design or not even thought of how the two work together. I know its pie in the sky stuff, but these sort of conversations are an indicator of how badly golf has strayed.  Because of the difficulties of matching design and maintenance, the difference between an 8 and 10 on your scale strikes me as well within acceptable limits.  In other words, erring on the side of too firm is no bad thing once in a while.

Ciao

[Mike_Clayton]

SeanA

RM's greens for The Women's Open would have been fine for the best men. The question is, should you set them up the same for women who don't spin the ball as much as the men?
So Yeon Ryu thought it the hardest course they play all year - with the exception perhaps of the US Open.

My other question is, do those who haven't seen or played RM in tournament conditions realise just how hard they get?  I've never seen anything close to them anywhere else in the world - except for the greens at The Lakes (1984 NSW Open) and Kingston Heath (1983 Australian Open). Bruce Grant set up The Lakes that year and his brother Graeme did KH in 83. Both were apprenticed under Claude Crockford at RM for 3-5 years.

[Sean_A]

Mike

I never set foot on RMW, but I am speaking more hypothetically. You seem to be shooting for the mythical absolutely perfect conditions depending on who is teeing it up.  My approach is far more blunt...keep courses as firm as nature will reasonably allow...design the course around these sort of conditions...don't spend money to artificially create softer conditions...don't spend money because pros are in town.

I have only played one course I thought was on the edge of too firm...in a way I thought the course was being damaged turf-wise because of the crusty nature of the turf.  I didn't mind the firery aspect of play in the least....but the course was layed out to accomodate fiery conditions.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

I'm with Sean. If you want to hold a tournament at Royal Melbourne, then playing in under conditions that allow 101% of it's "Royal Melbourne-ness" to come through is ideal.

Any group of players who doesn't want super firm and fast greens that are super difficult to hit and hold ought to play a different course. Thinking that the course needs to be softened, thereby taking away a tiny bit of its unique character is putting the cart before the horse IMHO.

That said, obviously Mike isn't calling for RM to have been overwatered into a drop-and-stop aerial target golf dartboard. He only opined that a slightly less firm presentation would have been preferable to the players and made for a better women's tournament setup. I don't agree with that particular idea but it isn't like he's pitching some ridiculous gospel of soft greens and boring setups here.

[Josh Stevens]

Im curious, not being an agronomist's left elbow, how you get them that hard.  Especially in a hot place where removing moisture would risk killing the greens.
It was warm, near 40 Celsius during the ladies open.  Would like to know the green keeping practices that produce that firmness without  putting the greens at risk

[jeffwarne]

David,

The problem with discussing irrigation practices as it pertains to championship venues is that they are courses that always have water...until two weeks before the championship. Then we talk about greens being on the edge. Of course they are, they just got deprived of what they always get.....water, in copious amounts.

That's what makes Fishers Island so interesting from an agronomic perspective. It is deprived on a regular basis, so it doesn't look, or act, like it is grass on the edge. But no one wants to listen or learn from that great example.

Joe

Great post
There's about five threads this should be bumped on
repeatedly

[Craig Sweet]

I watched all 4 rounds on TV

The greens and surrounds WERE too firm....Pretty frustrating to watch a 170 year approach shot land in front of the green and roll out the back and 20 yards down a slope...so much for the "ground game"....Pretty frustrating to watch a shot land 20 feet from the pin location, bounce 6 feet in the air and run 20 yards off the green.   If you could get your ball to stop on the green you had half a chance to score if you were a good putter....I'm sure the LPGA players were more than happy when their RM experience was over.

[jeffwarne]

I watched all 4 rounds on TV

The greens and surrounds WERE too firm....Pretty frustrating to watch a 170 year approach shot land in front of the green and roll out the back and 20 yards down a slope...so much for the "ground game"....Pretty frustrating to watch a shot land 20 feet from the pin location, bounce 6 feet in the air and run 20 yards off the green.   If you could get your ball to stop on the green you had half a chance to score if you were a good putter....I'm sure the LPGA players were more than happy when their RM experience was over.

No different than Shinny in 2004.
It all came down to who could make the 8-15 footers for par.
Retief made the most-no one hit many greens.

I honestly enjoy playing in such conditions when they seasonally occur as it's the same for everyone.
But to spend enormous amounts of time money and effort and umpteen crew members the week of an event (as well as quite a bit of mystery and controversy over who did what at night on whose orders) is beyond silly.(and ironically create the same conditions one can find for a fraction of the price at a local muni )
Just pick a site and tee it up and let mother nature and natural seasons and cycles determine the conditions-not a bow tie directed advanace "setup" team picking a score and justifying their existence

[BCowan]

(and ironically create the same conditions one can find for a fraction of the price at a local muni Wink Grin)

Jeff,

   Can you direct me to a muni that has greens stimping at 12 

Raise the HOC.  I'm with Don, there should be no such thing as too hard.  Arch needs to be addressed if greens are running at proper speeds!

[John Kavanaugh]

Could a 17 yr old shoot 9 under at Shinney in 2004?  Why ignore this fact proving RM was fair?

[RJ_Daley]

I think I am hearing Mike Clayton's message which in my mind is also centering on the idea of saving the tradition and future success of women's golf in Australia during their season.  So, I think I hear Mike saying a small but necessary adjustment to the firm and fast profile should be made to accommodate the whiners like Lewis's comment that good shots are not rewarded.  I am of the mind that Lydia played the good shots because she and her caddy understood the requirement given the rock hard conditions on the greens and surrounds, and she has more talent and precision than all the rest.  So, she prevailed where others could not. 

I am in he camp of belief that set up should not be overtly directed to go contrary to the seasonal and agronomic good sense to maintain healthy turf with the firm and fast underlying goal to present such as frequently withing seasonal adjustments as practical.   This has to be a blend of stimp meter fast with HOC and water regime and of course, the architecture itself.  The designed contours of the original architect can only be honored under the conditions the original architect could reasonably conceive, if he was a good architect.

Dr. MacKenzie and Russell and Morcum were good!  But, they only could conceive of turf within the context of what they could envision, even with an eye towards some technology and agronomy advancements.  Could MacKenzie have really understood what the Sandbelt yearly seasonal percipitation cycles would yield year after year, and how that and the couch grass respond to the slopes of his greens and suurrounds design in context with now achievable stimps of 15.   I think they had the understanding that the hardness factor would be as it is now, but not the stimps nor the perfection of the HOC and perfection of the roll.   IMHO

So, if the goal is to save and preserve the tradition of women's golf in Australia on these courses like RM and KH and the rest of the Sandbelt gems, and slight softening adjustments need to be made to give the notion that good shots will be rewarded, be that a fallacy or not, then do it to preserve the game and the tradition. 

Then the question becomes, will players like Lewis, Wie, Creamer, and the usual suspects STILL avoid the tournament because they are too pampered or don't want to interrupt their off season shopping and social life they expect at that time of year?  Do they want to compete on the greatest golf courses in the world, or cherry pick and not give a hot upon what course they ply their trade and to heck with the notion of competing on great courses, any course with a proper pay check will do....?

[BCowan]

RJ,

   I'm curious as to if TOC greens when Stacy won in 2013 were running more than 9.  Where they as firm as this past week at RM?  Is Stacy and everybody else miss diagnosing the issue.  It also goes back to F&F, in the 70's F&F was running 8 on the stimp.  Fast is the byproduct of Firm, not the other way around IMHO.  It seems as Green Speeds arms races wins every time.  When greens run 12+, shots landing short are going to roll over the greens when the turf is firm.  please raise the HOC..

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()