[Phil McDade]

By definition, doesn't a firm, undulating course increases the variability of the bounces, leading to less consistency of result?

Nothing wrong with that, by the way.  I like it.  But a soft, lush, narrow course is going to have less "luck" involved.

John:


I'd agree that variability of the bounces leads to less consistency of results. But does that necessarily lead to "luckier" outcomes of the tournament in determining a champion, as you suggest?


I would assume the variability of bounces leads to an equal number of "good" and "bad" outcomes for the golfer. Sure, those outcomes are on a continuum -- from unplayable to holing out. But random (unpredictable) outcomes are just as likely to be distributed on the good side of that continuum as they are on the bad side, aren't they? Isn't the better player able to take advantage, more often, of those good outcomes, and find a way to (more often) lessen the impact of the bad outcomes, than the lesser player? Unpredictability suggests to me an advantage for the better players out there.

[Jud_T]

Lets try not to get our panties in too much of a bunch in our little niche market and have a bit of perspective.  The $20mm for this project represents less than 4 hours of interest expense on the debt created by the Iraq war.  In the realm of prudent government spending, Chambers Bay seems like an effing bargain.

[Jason Thurman]

Jim, there is absolutely nothing in the article that suggests $20 million was spent on the course. The $20 million number references the spending for the entire project, and Tipton's quote is so far removed from that number that it's unclear what money he's speaking about when he says "most," to say nothing of whether he's using the word to imply a plurality of dollars or a majority of dollars within whatever money he's speaking of.

The goals of the project are also detailed in the article. The county wanted to build a course that would charge a premium and help pay for the park and stimulate the region economically. They did not want to build another affordable course that would compete with other municipal and daily fee courses in the area and threaten their customer base. They also had a property that was far more valuable if sold than if used for a golf course. A $30 public course on land like that sounds like a great idea to a bunch of golfers hanging out on the internet, but in reality it would have been considered a giant money-losing mess unworthy of the land it occupied and would quickly have been sold for private development, resulting in lost waterfront green space for everyone.

The idea that the course needs to be affordable to the 2 or 3% of the local population that wants and can't afford to play there once in a while is just nuts. Pierce County had a specific goal: create a course that justifies a high green fee that pays for its operation and the operation of other parks, and also brings economic benefits to the entire community. It's an unconventional plan, but the fact that they're pulling it off is commendable and borderline amazing. Only a bunch of golf nuts who live nowhere near the community would suggest that it would be better for Pierce County to have ANOTHER affordable golf course that would threaten the sustainability of the current publicly and privately owned courses in the area than to have the economic impact of a course that draws tourists year-round and is poised to host a major championship. Only a bunch of golf nuts who live nowhere near the community would suggest that an affordable public course on a piece of land that was purchased for $33 million dollars would be well-received politically and a wise use of public land.

[Mark Provenzano]

Too expensive
Too difficult
Takes to long to play

Save that description for a couple of years from now, because that's how I felt about Erin Hills. The 4.5 hour deathmarch. Nothing fun about it.

Chambers Bay, on the other hand, was an absolute blast. With a good caddy and a good attitude--including a willingness to trust local knowledge and try some shots that are outside your usual repertoire--it's hard not to enjoy yourself there. I can clearly remember many shots from my round, and that was a couple months after the US Amateur.

This mid-handicapper looks forward to going back someday.

[John Kirk]

Let me put it this way...

Let's say there is a tournament of flipping coins (about same percentages of hitting a fairway that is 25 yards wide like at US Open). Obviously, who wins this tournament is purely on luck.

What if there is a guy with a weighted coin that comes up heads 60% of times instead of 50%?

If there was a tournament, this guy would win for sure, correct?

Well, yes and no. Over thousands of coin flip, the guy with the weighted coin will win. However, if we are talking about only 72 flips in a tournament and there are 100 other players flipping, by pure luck, there is a better chance that one of the 100 players with a non-weighted coins will win than the person with the weighted coin. That winner will win on pure luck, not because he flipped better than the person with the weighted coin.

The narrower you make the fairway and eliminate the chances of recovery, you are increasing the influence of luck in determining the winner, not skill (and results above show it).

I disagree, and I even disagree that the list of U.S. Open champions is weak. Over the last forty or fifty years, the U.S. Open was typically played on a course with very narrow (20-35 yards) fairways and green 4-6" rough.  The player thought best equipped to handle these conditions was an accurate ballstriker.  Look at the list of champions.  Lee Trevino, Larry Nelson, Hale Irwin, Lee Janzen...these guys were really accurate ballstrikers, capable of hitting fairways and then small greens with longer irons.

The first golf tournament I remember watching carefully on television was the final round of the 1981 U.S. Open.  I was just starting to get interested in golf at the time.  If I am not mistaken, David Graham hit every fairway and 17 of 18 greens to win the tournament at Merion GC.  That's golf artistry of a type that is rarely rewarded anymore.  That's not luck, that's skill.

I don't get your thinking on this at all.

For one thing, one player does not that type of advantage (60% vs 50% success) over all other players.  The fact that the field still beats that player more often than not (assuming you've verified that fact) is the nature of golf, where there are 150 possible winners, and a great player wins about 10% of the time.

Hi Phil,

Similarly, I disagree that big bounces will even out over 72, or especially 36 holes.  If a player gets 5 or 6 wild bounces over a couple days, and instead of a 3-3 split he gets 5-1 bad bounces, it may cost them a spot on the weekend.  If I'm not mistaken, the chances of having a 5-1 distribution of bad to good bounces is about 1 in 11 (9.4%).  I expect at least one or two top players missing the cut by a stroke or two, while able to identify a specific bad break that cost them.  So we'll see if that happens.  It's not a bad thing, unless you're a golfer who dislikes "unfairness".

[Sean_A]

I honestly have no idea which type of course and which style of set up identifies the best golfer...because frankly...that is not the function of a golf course.  No, the play of golfers identifies the best golfer.  The funtion of a course is to provide a fun, interesting and well balanced challenge...for any level of golfer...that doesn't change when speaking of flat bellies.   


What is interesting to me is more the idea of "bad bounces".  That suggests bounces which are not predictable or even bounces which are opposite to predictions.  Is Chambers Bay some sort of geographical marvel that its bounces don't obey the laws of physics?


Ciao

[Niall C]

Richard


Granted a player may get the odd lucky and unlucky bounce that would make the difference between being in the rough and on the fairway but in the given scenario of soft and narrow fairways, thats probably unlikely. Take that over one hole never mind 72 and I'll go for the straight shooter every time.


Now if you are arguing that this type of set up focuses on a relatively limited skillset then I wouldn't argue with you. However it sems pretty plain that those who specialise in the skillset required don't need luck.


Sean


Surely the design and more crucially the set up of the course will decide the type of player who is likely to win. Given the tournament organisers decide both the course and the set up then it is plain the course functions in a way so as to try and identify the "best" golfer, however the organisers decide the criteria for "best" is.


As for bounces and the law of physics, I agree. I recall Davis Love at one of the Opens complaining that a fairway had to many humps and hollows to be fair for landing drives on. As one of the comentators said at the time, if he didn't hit the ball so high and had a lower ball flight, it would be easier to predict how the ball would react on landing. And to paraphrase another flat belly, the current world no. 1, those that control the ball best will do well.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall


Have you ever heard of setting up a course not to identify the best player    In other words, its all a matter of opinion  The phrase "the course identfies the champion" is about as meaningful as "using all the clubs in the bag".  It is one thing to say the course was set up to a certain philosophy and quite another to say the course identified the champion (I hate this sort of esoteric mumbo jumbo which obfuscates the reasons why some players are winners and others are not). The champion is determined by who scores the best and that person is the one who best coped with all facets of the tournament..including the mental aspects...which only has as much to do with a course or a set-up as a player allows it.  On Thursday morning everybody has an equal shot with the tools they bring to the tee.  That is why the event is played rather than handing out trophies based on perceptions.


Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


Define the term "best player". Likely we could all identify Rory McIlroy in an identity parade but start describing the most important attributes that a golfer should have to be the best and I think most of us would disagree to some extent the order of importance for each of those criteria. Therefore those who are attempting to identify the best player, be it the R&A or the USGA, will set up the course to best meet the criteria they have picked for the best player. I think that pretty obvious. To suggest it doesn't happen is a bit naive IMHO.


Niall

[Sean_A]

Niall


So am I getting this straight, you are now saying the USGA and R&A take the concept to point of identifying certain players and then setting the course up to meet their playing characteristics?  if so, I find this very far fetched.  And if true, I think both organizations should be stripped of any authourity in the game.


Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean


As I think you know fine well, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the organisers of comps have an idea of what type of golf it should take to win their tournament and set the course up accordingly. A fairly simple concept is it not ?


Niall

[Sean_A]

Sean


As I think you know fine well, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the organisers of comps have an idea of what type of golf it should take to win their tournament and set the course up accordingly. A fairly simple concept is it not ?


Niall

Niall


Again, that is miles from saying the course identifies the winner. 


Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

Whatever happens, I am sure RTJ is smiling in heaven that Bobby is continuing his legacy of a controversial Jones designed US Open course.

[Marc Haring]

Niall


So am I getting this straight, you are now saying the USGA and R&A take the concept to point of identifying certain players and then setting the course up to meet their playing characteristics?  if so, I find this very far fetched.  And if true, I think both organizations should be stripped of any authourity in the game.


Ciao

I'm sure I once read that the USGA set up US Open courses with the clear objective of finding the winner that most exemplified Hogan! In other words someone that would hit it arrow straight with perfect distance control. Then they went ahead and made every course as penal as possible. Ironically of course they actually identified a winner that couldn't hit anything straight but could scramble better than everyone else (Thinking Andy North, Scott Simpson) because nobody could hit the fairways or greens.

[Niall C]

Sean


I've never said the course identifies the winner. What I said was "Surely the design and more crucially the set up of the course will decide the type of player who is likely to win". Perhaps I could have used "influence" instead of "decide" but the point remains the same, it's horses for courses as they say. That's not to say that the very best players tend to be equipped to contend on pretty well most set ups. Even then a guy like Seve did significantly better on some courses which allowed a degree of waywardness allied to brilliance such as Augusta and certain Open set ups whereas he wasn't nearly so successful on the typical US Open set up of the day.

And not to labour the point but you see something similar in tennis with Nadals long dominance on clay, Novak's dominance at the Australian Open etc.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Marc,

Yes that has been a typical quote, I think usually in the context of someone asking why they are "humiliating" the best players with their course set ups.  Their reply is "no, just identifying."

Worth mentioning that the identity traits have morphed at least somewhat over the years. The US Open at Pebble where Kite won, was the first I recall they allowed chipping areas rather than deep rough around all the greens. They have gradually added concepts like driveable par 4 holes, etc.  I don't recall if the fairway chipping areas set the trend, or followed the architecture trends of the day, but that tournament, IMHO, certainly accelerated that trend.

[Marc Haring]

Marc,

Yes that has been a typical quote, I think usually in the context of someone asking why they are "humiliating" the best players with their course set ups.  Their reply is "no, just identifying."

Worth mentioning that the identity traits have morphed at least somewhat over the years. The US Open at Pebble where Kite won, was the first I recall they allowed chipping areas rather than deep rough around all the greens. They have gradually added concepts like driveable par 4 holes, etc.  I don't recall if the fairway chipping areas set the trend, or followed the architecture trends of the day, but that tournament, IMHO, certainly accelerated that trend.

Yes I think that was down to a change at the helm, Sandy Tatum, David Eger et al. It was of course the same at The Open culminating in the Carnoustie debacle of 99!!!


Thank god those days have gone.

[Niall C]

Marc


Carnoustie is a relatively hard course to play at the best of times but the ferocity of the rough in '99 was overstated in my opinion.


Niall

[Phil McDade]

I'm sure I once read that the USGA set up US Open courses with the clear objective of finding the winner that most exemplified Hogan! In other words someone that would hit it arrow straight with perfect distance control. Then they went ahead and made every course as penal as possible. Ironically of course they actually identified a winner that couldn't hit anything straight but could scramble better than everyone else (Thinking Andy North, Scott Simpson) because nobody could hit the fairways or greens.

Marc:


Simpson was one of the most accurate players off the tee during his prime -- he ranked 21st in driving accuracy the year he won the US Open in 1987. His string of strong finishes during the heydey of the USGA's fairway narrowing days (4 top 6 finishes in 5 years, including a win) -- and his lack of success in other majors over the same time -- suggest his game was extremely well-suited for the USGA set-ups of the late 1980s/early 1990s.


North, while he could be accurate, was really just a very strong and athletic player (he's 6'-4", and still holds basketball records at his high school alma mater) whose style of play -- conservative, solid putting, ability to play well out of the rough -- served him well in his two US Open wins on tough course set-ups (Cherry Hills in '78; Oakland Hills in '85).


I've always believed the USGA set-ups of that era benefitted not simply accurate players -- Fred Funk never contended for a US Open during that time while winning on the PGA Tour -- but big and strong players capable of both accurate play, and the strength to dig out of the rough when their play went awry. Irwin, a former college football player, won 3 times under those set-ups; Strange -- not a small guy -- won twice; Els (maybe the single most impressive athletic physique for a golfer I've ever seen in person; he's 6'-6") had two wins; Nicklaus, Trevino, Casper and Zoeller were all really strong (as in, strength) players. Interestingly, two wins by "little" guys in that era -- Kite at Pebble Beach, and Pavin at Shinnecock -- came on courses that played more links-like than any other Opens of that era.


I'm fairly convinced a short-hitting, accurate, shot-shaping player -- whoever the Pavin of this era is (Fowler? He's one of my leading candidates) can contend and win at CBay.

[Marc Haring]

I'm sure you're right Phil re: North and Simpson, it's just that I seem to remember those tournaments becoming more a war of attrition than anything else. Last man standing wins and not very entertaining. Of course David Graham at Merion put on a sublime shot making display so that year at least the USGA identified their man.


Casper I would not describe as strong in terms of power. Steady yes and his victories came with the aid of outrageous putting in 59 and "the" Arnie capitulation in 66.

I also hope you're right on Fowler as I've got him for a tenner at 23 to 1.

[John Kirk]

I honestly have no idea which type of course and which style of set up identifies the best golfer...because frankly...that is not the function of a golf course.  No, the play of golfers identifies the best golfer.  The funtion of a course is to provide a fun, interesting and well balanced challenge...for any level of golfer...that doesn't change when speaking of flat bellies.   


What is interesting to me is more the idea of "bad bounces".  That suggests bounces which are not predictable or even bounces which are opposite to predictions.  Is Chambers Bay some sort of geographical marvel that its bounces don't obey the laws of physics?


Ciao

Sean,

I agree.  A truly unlucky bounce is a rare thing, like hitting a sprinkler head.  However, a ball which bounces wildly away from the line of play in one instance, but bounces towards the hole if it lands in a slightly different location (feet away) will be perceived as "unlucky".  An hilly, bouncy undulating course will tend to create a greater dispersion for similar shots.  Some guys will feel lucky, others will feel unlucky.

I've played Chambers Bay three times, and I don't think it's all that wild in this regard, but I didn't play it this dry and firm.  I think the ball will bounce uniformly on most holes, with a few exceptions, like the 9th hole from the upper tee.

[Brent Hutto]

For whatever part of the US Open I end up seeing on TV, I'll no doubt be comparing what I see to my own mental map of "unlucky bounces" from places I've actually played myself. One course that's always mentioned in such conversations is Royal St. Georges.


More recently I played several rounds at Harlech last year. The combination of blindness and humpity-bumpity terrain, often in tee shot landing areas, made for a striking frequency of both "lucky" and "unlucky" bounces. Deep in my heart I'm convinced that surely the number of "lucky" and "unlucky" must have reached a balance when considered over 5 rounds. But man it doesn't seem so when you're out there on the course.


Aside from sheer numbers, there's also the matter of whether one "lucky bounce" can do you as much good as one "unlucky bounce" does harm. And I think that's at the root of why a player like many of us here can embrace the luck of the bounce as a thrilling and enriching element to the game.


I hit a lot of shots that are headed toward very bad spots. On a soft course, those shots are pretty much a settled outcome while they're still in the air. The ball is going to go THERE and stop exactly where I don't want to be. So on a course like Chambers Bay it's entirely possible when it stops and bouncing and rolling things are quite as bad as they seem. Conversely, I hit relatively few shots that are so perfectly judged that the spot they strike the ground is far superior to any other spot within 20-30 yards. So it just isn't that often an apparently "perfect" shot is spoilt by a random kick.


Thinking of Tour players, the proportions are reversed. The best of them are extremely adept and hitting shots to a small target that is by far the best place to be from among the surrounding half-acre or so of land. When a player like Rory or Bubba is on their best game they are dropping the ball within feet, not yards, of their intended target and doing it a dozen or two dozen times in a round. Any bounce at all is going to be a major loss of position for the next shot.


All of this is to say I think I understand why I would find a course like Chambers Bay, dried out and running as firm-and-fast as possible, to be a thrill while the Rorys and Bubbas of the world see it as the equivalent to week-long root canal.

[John Kirk]

I'm sure I once read that the USGA set up US Open courses with the clear objective of finding the winner that most exemplified Hogan! In other words someone that would hit it arrow straight with perfect distance control. Then they went ahead and made every course as penal as possible. Ironically of course they actually identified a winner that couldn't hit anything straight but could scramble better than everyone else (Thinking Andy North, Scott Simpson) because nobody could hit the fairways or greens.

Marc:


Simpson was one of the most accurate players off the tee during his prime -- he ranked 21st in driving accuracy the year he won the US Open in 1987. His string of strong finishes during the heydey of the USGA's fairway narrowing days (4 top 6 finishes in 5 years, including a win) -- and his lack of success in other majors over the same time -- suggest his game was extremely well-suited for the USGA set-ups of the late 1980s/early 1990s.


North, while he could be accurate, was really just a very strong and athletic player (he's 6'-4", and still holds basketball records at his high school alma mater) whose style of play -- conservative, solid putting, ability to play well out of the rough -- served him well in his two US Open wins on tough course set-ups (Cherry Hills in '78; Oakland Hills in '85).


I've always believed the USGA set-ups of that era benefitted not simply accurate players -- Fred Funk never contended for a US Open during that time while winning on the PGA Tour -- but big and strong players capable of both accurate play, and the strength to dig out of the rough when their play went awry. Irwin, a former college football player, won 3 times under those set-ups; Strange -- not a small guy -- won twice; Els (maybe the single most impressive athletic physique for a golfer I've ever seen in person; he's 6'-6") had two wins; Nicklaus, Trevino, Casper and Zoeller were all really strong (as in, strength) players. Interestingly, two wins by "little" guys in that era -- Kite at Pebble Beach, and Pavin at Shinnecock -- came on courses that played more links-like than any other Opens of that era.


I'm fairly convinced a short-hitting, accurate, shot-shaping player -- whoever the Pavin of this era is (Fowler? He's one of my leading candidates) can contend and win at CBay.

Great comments.  Off this group, I would have said Strange, Irwin and Trevino were all precision players.

I'm excited to see how the leaderboard shapes up this weekend, and whether longer hitters seem to dominate.  One of my close friends, a great golfer, spent a couple days there inside the ropes, and thought longer hitters will have a big advantage.  He also thought that the course was so long that players will be compelled to consistently play for the center of the green, and for that reason it will be a relentless and boring slog.  But I think he's basing this opinion on playing the longest versions of holes in practice rounds, and discounting the variable setups, which should encourage aggressive play here and there.

Back to the "luck" factor.  I haven't seen any action yet, but I'm going to guess that the greens will not be as smooth as the first class bent greens as places like Merion.  Even on "good" greens, a robot does not make every six footer.  The variability of rolling putts is closer to real "luck".

[Marc Haring]

Phil hits it left on his approach to 1 and has 60 yards left but still on fairway. Bubba does the same. This is going to be fun.

[archie_struthers]

 




Usually look at anything the government does with a jaundiced eye . So do we know if the construction companies who built it charged fair prices? Or were related to local politicians?


However it looks way cool to me , and I look forward to seeing how it plays for the pros. It looks like it's got a ton of quirky greens , a wonderful thing !  It looks breathtakingly beautiful , and that never hurts .  It's wide , which is fun , and if there aren't a ton of forced carries it's going to,be fun for lots of people.


The fescue , while great looking , always seems to be an issue for the average golfer . However , it's just the way it has to be to finish off the look and design . Personally I'm looking forward to,learning more about the golf course this week !

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()