[Brent Hutto]

Apropos George's comments of "pushing the limits", here's another thought on that first green at Doral.

Let's say you wanted a Par 5 set up in such a way that the majority of players in the field would be better off laying up, with only the very strongest being able to reach and hold the green in two strokes. I believe that's exactly what the goal was for the hole in question.

And let's say you want the test to be so exacting that even those very strongest players still may find the water with anything short of a "perfect" second shot. Again, that's probably what the Tour was shooting for IMO.

To my thinking, there are two incredibly fine lines between a setup that accomplishes what I just described and one of the following slightly different outcomes:

1) The setup is just a bit too soft for the conditions and every single player capable of reaching the green in fact hits and holds the green, resulting in numerous eagle-putt attempts and no balls in the water at all. Minimal risk, almost guaranteed reward (assuming you can drive the ball far enough, that is).

2) The setup is just a little too severe and even the very, very best shots from the very, very strongest players end up in the water. All risk with the reward unattainable.

The only way to avoid one or the other of these possibilities is not to try at all. Which is fine but if there were an entire season of golf in which no setup on any hole erred on the too-severe side then there has got to be some interest and excitement left on the table. But here's my real point...

Just because that particular hole was the site of a setup that was just a tiny fraction too severe, it does not follow that the hole is flawed.

[Brent Hutto]

First we had the podcasters who wanted to slow down Royal Melbourne and soften Riviera's greens. Now we have the people who don't want to see any rollout on 240 yard fades hit to greens sloping left-to-right toward water that increasingly cuts in as the pin is challenged.

You people are going to HATE this year's Open Championship course...

Perhaps the annoying JakaB in this case had his finger on the pulse of the forum. It may well be that the Clayton/Shackelford podcast was a dog whistle signaling a change in what we're supposed to be advocating here.

I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too.

[Matt Kardash]

There is just too much water. I know it's a Florida course and water comes with the territory, but it is hard to get beyond the amounts of fairways and greens flush up against a water hazard. And even beyond that, if you hit it way off there is usually a pond "out of play" that will get your ball.
I think Gil Hanse actually brought more water into play, which is exactly what this course did not need.

[Jason Thurman]

Brent, it's just embarrassing. For years, we've heard extolled on this site that fast and firm conditions equalize things by making it harder for strong players to control their ball while giving shorter hitters a distance boost. On the fourth-easiest hole at Doral, we saw a perfect example of this phenomenon at work as the longest hitter in the field hit a well-struck but strategically incompetent shot that was repelled by a firm green with a sideslope. Instead of celebrating, we immediately turn into a bunch of Mark Rolfings.

Brace yourself. At this rate, BUDA will be going to K Club or Gleneagles in 2016. #Fairness

[Mark_Fine]

I am not blaming the architecture - I am blaming the course set up!  

With all due respect guys, course set ups these days are at times going over the top (the theory being we have to test these guys to the max) and it is not necessary to force this especially with the best golf courses.  They did the same to Merion as far as course set up.  In Merion's case they choked down all the fairways to the point where they took much of the interest and strategy out of that course (it was still good theater, but it could have been even better and invited much more risk reward shot making).  The list like this goes on and on.

The best story I have about course set up is from about a dozen or so years back.  I was over in England and getting ready to tee it up at Royal Birkdale with a buddy of mine who is a member there.  It was about three months before The Open was to be played on the golf course.  I looked at him and said, “So John, what do they do to the course to get it ready for The Open”?  He laughed at me and said, “Well they put up some stands, throw a little bit of seed on the greens, open up the back tees, and tell the boys to come in and have a go!”  Sadly it doesn’t work that way any more with course set ups  Today they are over analyzed and over done often to the demise of the architecture.  

[Jason Thurman]

Mark, I agree 100% on Merion. That was a bastardization of the highest order with the way they narrowed everything up in a quest to protect par.

I don't see it at Doral though. I don't understand why a 240 yard downwind fade to a firm green that slopes left to right toward water should be expected to stop any more quickly than Holmes' shot was going to. I also think the camera tricked a lot of viewers, as it looked like Holmes' ball took a harder turn to the right than it really did. In reality, the water cuts in diagonally from right to left - Holmes' ball rolled out with just a gentle curve to water that intrudes more and more tightly as you get deeper into the green.

It was a physically stunning shot. Strategically though, it was completely stupid and the wrong shot for the situation. The architecture dictates as much, and the conditions allowed the architecture to do its job.

[Brent Hutto]

Jason,

It's the sort of shot that might seem heroic on the 72nd hole, played by someone two shots behind the clubhouse leader.

But agreed, it seemed at best ill-advised on the first hole of a round by the leader.

[BCowan]

So lets get this straight.  Narrowing fairways is bastardization at Merion, but running greens at 13 (which narrows them and drastically accentuates slope/tilt) with ponds next to them is great arch or Okay?  I'm all for rub of the green, but that is just hypocritical.   

[Jason Thurman]

You got it. I like fast greens. They're fun to putt on and, when firm, they make slopes and angles more relevant in a modern game of high flying balls that fly a mile and stop on a dime. My nerves are still young enough that I've never played a round and thought "I wish these greens were slower."

Narrow fairways aren't fun for me, and at Merion they also choked out all the angles of play and options that were built into the architecture of the course. I don't see the connection you've made between the two, but then, I rarely do.

[jeffwarne]

Doral matches the scale of the modern pro game.
One of the few places you'll see drivers hit consistently.
Did ANYONE not go for 16?  Zzz
at least the old 16 had choices due to technology and it wasnt very good

[BCowan]

You got it. I like fast greens. They're fun to putt on and, when firm, they make slopes and angles more relevant in a modern game of high flying balls that fly a mile and stop on a dime. My nerves are still young enough that I've never played a round and thought "I wish these greens were slower."

Narrow fairways aren't fun for me, and at Merion they also choked out all the angles of play and options that were built into the architecture of the course. I don't see the connection you've made between the two, but then, I rarely do.

   What Firm and Fast tourney set up have you played on?  You can't stop it on a dime on firm greens, but nice try.   ''My nerves are still young enough that I've never played a round and thought "I wish these greens were slower."''- Nerves has nothing to do with it, it is all about how they relate to the arch.  

   You are contradicting yourself which you do on a regular basis.  The angles at Merion were still there, they were just reduced.  Same for the 240 yard shot that was an okay shot, but didn't call for a penalty shot as a result.  If greens stimping at 13 were built into the reno, then i have even less respect for Hanse.  You not being able to see the connection with reduced angles from green speeds as the same as narrower fairways doesn't surprise me in the least.  You also say you like options, how many pin placement options do you have when greens are running at 13?  Common sense isn't common.  

[Terry Lavin]

Yep, he's a good spelling counteracter.

[BCowan]

''I am not here to have my writing ability judged or battle anyone over the use of the English language''- Jim Bluck, Superintendent of Forrest Dunes Golf Course. 

[Terry Lavin]

''I am not here to have my writing ability judged or battle anyone over the use of the English language''- Jim Bluck, Superintendent of Forrest Dunes Golf Course. 

Great. Please hire an interpreter.

[BCowan]

''I am not here to have my writing ability judged or battle anyone over the use of the English language''- Jim Bluck, Superintendent of Forrest Dunes Golf Course.  

Great. Please hire an interpreter.

Or you can just not comment on a post, when you don't have meaningful dialogue to contribute!  I know it's hard.

[BHoover]

I have very little interest in playing Doral. That said, it seemed to produce a good tournament, which is what matters when looking at a tournament course. If some players are complaining, then it probably means the course served its purpose.

[Jason Thurman]

  What Firm and Fast tourney set up have you played on?

I play greens that stimp at 12-13 several times a year. I enjoy them.

You can't stop it on a dime on firm greens, but nice try.

That's the point.  

''My nerves are still young enough that I've never played a round and thought "I wish these greens were slower."''- Nerves has nothing to do with it, it is all about how they relate to the arch.

Yips are due to architecture? Or were you talking about putting strokes and misspelled "arc"?

You are contradicting yourself which you do on a regular basis.

Please explain. I like fast greens and wide fairways. I don't see the contradiction.  

The angles at Merion were still there, they were just reduced.

To hit a 15 yard wide fairway with a 310 yard drive, players can aim as much as 2.8 degrees apart. Therefore, technically you're right.  

Same for the 240 yard shot that was an okay shot, but didn't call for a penalty shot as a result.

Actually, there was a penalty shot called for. That's how lateral hazards work. Please review rule 26.  

If greens stimping at 13 were built into the reno, then i have even less respect for Hanse.

I hope he doesn't lose too much sleep.

You not being able to see the connection with reduced angles from green speeds as the same as narrower fairways doesn't surprise me in the least.

My wife hates surprises, so I've generally stopped delivering them.

You also say you like options, how many pin placement options do you have when greens are running at 13?

9.

Common sense isn't common.

Voltaire is rolling over in his grave.

Or you can just not comment on a post, when you don't have meaningful dialog to contribute!  I know it's hard.

Eh, I won't comment on this one. It would be like throwing down an alley-oop when leading by 98 with 13 seconds left in the game.

[Tom_Doak]

My personal opinion is that the televised tournament repels as many guests as it attracts.

That may be, but it doesn't matter one bit.  The whole point is just to attract enough golfers to make it profitable.  It doesn't matter how many golfers are repelled if they weren't going there anyway.

No offense, but I think Donald Trump understands that part of his business a bit better than you do.

I do think the combination of contoured greens and adjacent water hazards is liable to backfire every once in a while.  There really aren't many examples of the two together, and that's probably for a reason.

[BCowan]

  What Firm and Fast tourney set up have you played on?

I play greens that stimp at 12-13 several times a year. I enjoy them.
You haven't played Firm and 12/13, nice try lumping them together.

You can't stop it on a dime on firm greens, but nice try.

That's the point.  
Firm greens prevent stopping on a dime, not green speeds.

''My nerves are still young enough that I've never played a round and thought "I wish these greens were slower."''- Nerves has nothing to do with it, it is all about how they relate to the arch.

Yips are due to architecture? Or were you talking about putting strokes and misspelled "arc"?
Faster green speeds lead to softer greens for the most part.  You can't have both

You are contradicting yourself which you do on a regular basis.

Please explain. I like fast greens and wide fairways. I don't see the contradiction.  
Angles.  

The angles at Merion were still there, they were just reduced.

To hit a 15 yard wide fairway with a 310 yard drive, players can aim as much as 2.8 degrees apart. Therefore, technically you're right.  
15 yards please, exaggerating again which you love to do.  I know, I am for the most part, ur learning.

Same for the 240 yard shot that was an okay shot, but didn't call for a penalty shot as a result.

Actually, there was a penalty shot called for. That's how lateral hazards work. Please review rule 26.  
Reduced angles.  The long rough which you criticize is the same as a penalty shot for an decent shot that became a penalty.  

If greens stimping at 13 were built into the reno, then i have even less respect for Hanse.

I hope he doesn't lose too much sleep.
I'm sure Nickleback doesn't lose sleep when you criticize them.  

You not being able to see the connection with reduced angles from green speeds as the same as narrower fairways doesn't surprise me in the least.

My wife hates surprises, so I've generally stopped delivering them.
 A reply from someone who just doesn't get it.  

You also say you like options, how many pin placement options do you have when greens are running at 13?

9.
Please elaborate?

Common sense isn't common.

Voltaire is rolling over in his grave.
So is Thomas Jefferson  

Or you can just not comment on a post, when you don't have meaningful dialog to contribute!  I know it's hard.

Eh, I won't comment on this one. It would be like throwing down an alley-oop when leading by 98 with 13 seconds left in the game.

I'm the one up by 98, I know it is too easy.  That is your only straw.  

[Matthew Petersen]

One guy who got a tough result from a risky shot really isn't indicative of anything in regards to course setup. The first played as the 15th hardest hole relative to par for the week and there weren't a ton of balls in the water on any of the days.

That's not to say I'm for greens stimping at 13, either. Ideas here needn't be mutually exclusive.

But JB had 246 with wind behind him on a course full of greens that are very firm. Before he hits it, Nobilo says you can't afford to let your shot start going left-to-right. I don't care if you're hitting a 6-iron or a 3-wood, a shot from 246 isn't going to drop and stop and the water immediately abuts the green.

On the other hand, once the ball goes in the water, Nobilo implies they've been told the rough around water should hold up a shot that is just trickling. If that's the case, that ball should have stopped, so either they need to try to thicken up the rough there or the slope is too extreme. Based on looking at it, plus the trouble he had with even placing the ball after failed drop attempts, I think the slop might be too steep. But, come on, he didn't hit a perfect shot for the situation.

[Josh Tarble]

This is insane, never would I have thought Charlie Rymer would be making more sense on this issue than GCA.

Gil Hanse did a masterful job of building a course ideally suited to challenge the best pros in the game, both physically and mentally. Now GCA wants any shot at hit at a green to hold it. In my opinion #1 is the perfect kind of hole for the modern game. When it's possible to hit at 240 yard 6 iron there has to be something to keep guys from destroying the hole. Everyone knew the green must be approached from the right (well apparently not JB). This hole allowed for multiple ways for it to be played but held up to everyone.

Eh, I won't comment on this one. It would be like throwing down an alley-oop when leading by 98 with 13 seconds left in the game.

Come on, that's how things like this happen:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1aMs6khRYPM

[BCowan]

 ''Now GCA wants any shot at hit at a green to hold it.'' - What does this mean?  I advocate for nothing but the firmest greens.  Charlie Rymer is friends with the Donald, no bias there. 



''In my opinion #1 is the perfect kind of hole for the modern game. When it's possible to hit at 240 yard 6 iron there has to be something to keep guys from destroying the hole''

  How about fall away greens, bold greens with lots of movement in them?  How do the classic courses protect par with less than a few ponds on them ( ponds most likely created in the 50's and 60's)?   

Given the set up and assuming the course played the same in the practice rounds, JB didn't do his homework and attempted a very low percentage shot for someone with a left to right ball flight.  Especially the situation that he was in.  If this modern arch. is needed for tourney golf, I find it rather boring and lacking in creativity.  Different strokes for different folks.   

[Michael Whitaker]

My personal opinion is that the televised tournament repels as many guests as it attracts.

That may be, but it doesn't matter one bit.  The whole point is just to attract enough golfers to make it profitable.  It doesn't matter how many golfers are repelled if they weren't going there anyway.

No offense, but I think Donald Trump understands that part of his business a bit better than you do.

I do think the combination of contoured greens and adjacent water hazards is liable to backfire every once in a while.  There really aren't many examples of the two together, and that's probably for a reason.

Hey... I thought you were in South America and off the grid!!!

This is kinda what I was getting at... it's the BLUE MONSTER! Water, water everywhere. Take a chance and miss and you pay the ultimate penalty. It's not like Pinehurst #2 where you just get in the pine straw or wire grass. Swap out the water with some waste areas and the pros would not be complaining. But, that's not going to happen, so adjust accordingly... or, your six iron from 240 is going in the water.

[Brent Hutto]

Wasn't that a lateral hazard anyway? Which means he ultimately *placed* the ball on the fringe, lying three. And had a chip for birdie.

[Josh Tarble]

''Now GCA wants any shot at hit at a green to hold it.'' - What does this mean?  I advocate for nothing but the firmest greens.  Charlie Rymer is friends with the Donald, no bias there. 



''In my opinion #1 is the perfect kind of hole for the modern game. When it's possible to hit at 240 yard 6 iron there has to be something to keep guys from destroying the hole''

  How about fall away greens, bold greens with lots of movement in them?  How do the classic courses protect par with less than a few ponds on them ( ponds most likely created in the 50's and 60's)?   

Given the set up and assuming the course played the same in the practice rounds, JB didn't do his homework and attempted a very low percentage shot for someone with a left to right ball flight.  Especially the situation that he was in.  If this modern arch. is needed for tourney golf, I find it rather boring and lacking in creativity.  Different strokes for different folks.   

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=p7w64fbqYQY

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()