[Duncan Cheslett]

Thanks, Bob. Although now that I've seen the Westwood clip he basically said it in fewer words. Plus his British accent made it sound much more authoritative 

A Worksop accent "authoritative"?

To most people in England he probably just sounds like another Northern oik!   

[Tom_Doak]

I started another thread about this but see that it's better to post here:


Lost in all the shuffle was the fact that Spieth won after talking Mike Davis out of playing the 18th hole as a par-4 for Sunday's final round, as had been planned all along.


Spieth's criticism of the hole was basically that a few players [oh, I don't know, somebody like Dustin Johnson] were given a great advantage from the forward tee because they could fly it over all the bunkers, while average-length hitters like Jordan had to squeeze their drives into a very narrow, "unfair" landing zone. 


It was a fair analysis of the golf hole, from Spieth's perspective; not so much from Johnson's.  But this is what tournament set-up is REALLY all about.


Now, you could argue that playing the hole from 600 yards favored a long hitter like Dustin [who hit 5-iron into the green] over Spieth [who hit 3-wood or something], but Spieth had clearly expressed his preference for the longer hole, because he was uncertain how to play it from shorter. 


On a course like Chambers Bay, with more "random" bunkering, the choice of tee positions will advantage some players and disadvantage others on any given hole, and it's important to come up with a balance through the course of 18 holes each day.  I don't know if that balance was appropriate at Chambers Bay or not ... I didn't watch nearly enough of the event.  But I know that for years, the shorter hitters on the Tour have been complaining that the tee shots are all set up based on what seems fair to Tiger and Phil Mickelson ... if they can't make the carry because of wind or other factors, the Tour moves the tees up, but they do not do the same for the shorter hitters.  The LPGA Tour used to do the opposite years ago ... JoAnne Carner complained vociferously how short they would set up their courses so she didn't just overpower the smaller, prettier girls.


If this is a sign they are going to start setting up courses to favor the medium-length hitter instead of the longest guys on Tour, maybe that's a good thing.  But it was a bit too obvious of a place to start.

[Terry Lavin]

Of course, it's Mother Nature's fault, but it's not just that.  The USGA has an agronomy section and its US Open Committee has an officer who has an amazing amount of control over what the site course does in maintaining the turfgrass.  I know this, because I was the grounds chair at a club for a US Open.  To think that they would be as involved as the normally are and to have these greens wind up as mottled as they were, as riddled with poa annua which is known to make greens very bumpy in the afternoon, implies to me some significant responsibility on the part of the Chambers Bay staff AND the USGA.  I cannot emphasize enough the level of control that they take over the ground at an Open.  And even if they can't prevent poa infiltration, its own agronomy staff had to know that Chambers Bay was too early in its existence to successfully ward off the kind of issues that it wound up with.  This is hindsight, 20-20 vision of course, but it may have been wiser to wait another handful of years to make sure that the ground would be more ideal for a national championship.  I have a fair amount of exposure to the Bandon Dunes golf courses and they've had their ups and downs, but after a number of years, the staff has figured out the proper way to provide consistent putting surfaces.  So I think the USGA has some responsibility here that it didn't measure up to.
 
Having said that, the criticisms are a bit over the top.  The conditions still allowed the golf course to be set up in a manner that helped identify the best player in Jordan Speith.  Dustin Johnson was awfully close, but you can't have three 3 putts in the final 9 holes of a US Open and expect to win.  And he didn't miss those makeable putts because of bumpy surfaces.  He hit bad putts.  Grace was right in the hunt and he hit a horrible tee shot out of bounds that cost him his shot at the championship.  Oosthuizen was able to come from behind and get into condition on the final day of the US Open, which doesn't happen all that often.  Finally, Adam Scott had the low round of the championship on the final day.  All of these things tell me that it was a good site for a great championship.  I hope that it will only continue to improve agronomically, because it would be great for the Pac NW to have a recurring site. 
 
It isn't a perfect site.  It's a bit of a bastardization of links golf.  It can be set up in a way to absolutely torture professional golfers, but it's elastic enough to hit the rheostat and dial it back at the same time.  I think overall it's a win for the USGA, a win for Chambers, a win for the Pac NW and for the game of golf in America.

[Kevin Lynch]

Tom -


Or perhaps it was Spieth's suggestion that he may consider playing 18 from the 1st Fairway.  Davis may not have wanted to deal with that potential oddity.


When you combine
- Spieth's rational explanation after the 2nd round about the imbalance
- Spieth's subsequent statement that he'd accept it and figure out a way
- Westwood's tweet about the 18th (great 5 / horrible 4)
- and the memory of the 2008 finish at Torrey.....


...it probably became very easy for Davis to justify that Johnson's 5 iron vs Spieth's 3 wood was a fair solution and leave it as a Par 5.

[Terry Lavin]

I started another thread about this but see that it's better to post here:


Lost in all the shuffle was the fact that Spieth won after talking Mike Davis out of playing the 18th hole as a par-4 for Sunday's final round, as had been planned all along.


Spieth's criticism of the hole was basically that a few players [oh, I don't know, somebody like Dustin Johnson] were given a great advantage from the forward tee because they could fly it over all the bunkers, while average-length hitters like Jordan had to squeeze their drives into a very narrow, "unfair" landing zone. 


It was a fair analysis of the golf hole, from Spieth's perspective; not so much from Johnson's.  But this is what tournament set-up is REALLY all about.


Now, you could argue that playing the hole from 600 yards favored a long hitter like Dustin [who hit 5-iron into the green] over Spieth [who hit 3-wood or something], but Spieth had clearly expressed his preference for the longer hole, because he was uncertain how to play it from shorter. 


On a course like Chambers Bay, with more "random" bunkering, the choice of tee positions will advantage some players and disadvantage others on any given hole, and it's important to come up with a balance through the course of 18 holes each day.  I don't know if that balance was appropriate at Chambers Bay or not ... I didn't watch nearly enough of the event.  But I know that for years, the shorter hitters on the Tour have been complaining that the tee shots are all set up based on what seems fair to Tiger and Phil Mickelson ... if they can't make the carry because of wind or other factors, the Tour moves the tees up, but they do not do the same for the shorter hitters.  The LPGA Tour used to do the opposite years ago ... JoAnne Carner complained vociferously how short they would set up their courses so she didn't just overpower the smaller, prettier girls.


If this is a sign they are going to start setting up courses to favor the medium-length hitter instead of the longest guys on Tour, maybe that's a good thing.  But it was a bit too obvious of a place to start.

I guess there could be some merit to this suggestion, along the lines of a professional sports team coach baiting the officials during the course of the game in an avowed effort to get a make-up call later in the game.  But isn't it sort of undeniable that 18 is a stupid par 4 and a great risk reward par 5?  The way the hole was played on the final round allowed the US Open to be won with a birdie on the final for the first time in something like 90 years!  They just love the brutal finishing par 4 so that the winner hoists the trophy because his opponent made bogey while he made par.  They acted against type in letting the hole play the way it was intended to play as opposed to repeating the earlier mistake of playing it as a par 4.  But despite all this kerfuffle, the two main protagonists each had makeable eagle putts and makeable birdie putts.  Only one made the birdie putt.  Johnson being above the hole in two shots put him in a precarious position where he had a very difficult-to-hole 12 footer, one that would predictably scoot past the hole if not perfectly aimed.  Spieth had an uphill putt that was much easier to manage, with a pretty good shot at making it and little chance for anything other than a tap-in if he missed the first putt.  This strikes me as a pretty good example of risk reward playing out on a par-5 finisher in a major championship, regardless of who first put the thought in Mike Davis's head.

[Jerry Kluger]

I don't see how playing 18 as a par 5, which I agree is a better hole that way, helped Spieth.  Spieth hit a fantastic 3 wood to make birdie after missing his eagle putt.  Johnson only needed to hit a 5 iron into that green which was surely a significant advantage.  Spieth was fortunate that Johnson could not make either putt but I don't see that playing it as a par 5 was to his advantage.

[Terry Lavin]

I don't see how playing 18 as a par 5, which I agree is a better hole that way, helped Spieth.  Spieth hit a fantastic 3 wood to make birdie after missing his eagle putt.  Johnson only needed to hit a 5 iron into that green which was surely a significant advantage.  Spieth was fortunate that Johnson could not make either putt but I don't see that playing it as a par 5 was to his advantage.

Agreed.  It was more of an advantage to Johnson, but he put his approach shot past the hole.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Maybe it helped him.


But take away his swing on 17, and it was a non-factor.


Jordan still went out and hit a lot of wonderful golf shots and holed some really good puts.


He executed better than Dustin.

[John Kavanaugh]

There is zero rational for making the 16th a drivable hole for everyone after the "bad boy" in the final group just had what was called the 3rd finest day driving the ball in tour history.  I loved the drama but taking the driver out of Dustin's hands was akin to changing the rules the day of the game forcing Babe Ruth to bunt.  Entertaining, no doubt.


Playing 18 as a par five helped Speith because his drive ends up short of the fairway bunker.  Everyone else on that line had to lay up, including Grace.

[John Kavanaugh]

Didn't everyone else notice how Speith was changing his routine down the stretch.  He is human.  Mike Davis standing on the 18th tee with a blue par 5 blankie had to be comforting.  The small things matter.

[Russ Arbuthnot]

--

[J_ Crisham]

I started another thread about this but see that it's better to post here:


Lost in all the shuffle was the fact that Spieth won after talking Mike Davis out of playing the 18th hole as a par-4 for Sunday's final round, as had been planned all along.


Spieth's criticism of the hole was basically that a few players [oh, I don't know, somebody like Dustin Johnson] were given a great advantage from the forward tee because they could fly it over all the bunkers, while average-length hitters like Jordan had to squeeze their drives into a very narrow, "unfair" landing zone. 


It was a fair analysis of the golf hole, from Spieth's perspective; not so much from Johnson's.  But this is what tournament set-up is REALLY all about.


Now, you could argue that playing the hole from 600 yards favored a long hitter like Dustin [who hit 5-iron into the green] over Spieth [who hit 3-wood or something], but Spieth had clearly expressed his preference for the longer hole, because he was uncertain how to play it from shorter. 


On a course like Chambers Bay, with more "random" bunkering, the choice of tee positions will advantage some players and disadvantage others on any given hole, and it's important to come up with a balance through the course of 18 holes each day.  I don't know if that balance was appropriate at Chambers Bay or not ... I didn't watch nearly enough of the event.  But I know that for years, the shorter hitters on the Tour have been complaining that the tee shots are all set up based on what seems fair to Tiger and Phil Mickelson ... if they can't make the carry because of wind or other factors, the Tour moves the tees up, but they do not do the same for the shorter hitters.  The LPGA Tour used to do the opposite years ago ... JoAnne Carner complained vociferously how short they would set up their courses so she didn't just overpower the smaller, prettier girls.


If this is a sign they are going to start setting up courses to favor the medium-length hitter instead of the longest guys on Tour, maybe that's a good thing.  But it was a bit too obvious of a place to start.

At the end of the day DJ was able to fit  a 350 yd drive on 18 into a very tight area. He was unable to sink 5 makeable putts on the back nine. It should never have been as close as it was. Sadly, this loss will haunt DJ every remaining day of his life.

[George Pazin]

Length is its own reward. DJ had plenty of advantages all over the place, allowing him to hit something other than driver while others hit driver is no penalty other than in one's mind. Tailoring the course to him is no different - in fact, it's worse - than tailoring it for the bulk of the field.

He missed a lot of putts. Deal with it.

[Howard Riefs]

Length is its own reward. DJ had plenty of advantages all over the place, allowing him to hit something other than driver while others hit driver is no penalty other than in one's mind. Tailoring the course to him is no different - in fact, it's worse - than tailoring it for the bulk of the field.

He missed a lot of putts. Deal with it.

Dustin's missed putts on the back nine Sunday...

10: 6'
11: 6'
12: 7'
13: 5'
16: 9'
18: 4'

No wonder there wasn't a promotion for a free putter if Dustin won the US Open.

[J_ Crisham]

Length is its own reward. DJ had plenty of advantages all over the place, allowing him to hit something other than driver while others hit driver is no penalty other than in one's mind. Tailoring the course to him is no different - in fact, it's worse - than tailoring it for the bulk of the field.

He missed a lot of putts. Deal with it.

Dustin's missed putts on the back nine Sunday...


10: 6' 11: 6' 12: 7' 13: 5' 16: 9' 18: 4'

No wonder there wasn't a promotion for a free putter if Dustin won the US Open.

Back in the day , Nicklaus would bury every one of those putts and win going away.

[RJ_Daley]

I loved the last three posts. 

Length is its own reward. DJ had plenty of advantages all over the place, allowing him to hit something other than driver while others hit driver is no penalty other than in one's mind. Tailoring the course to him is no different - in fact, it's worse - than tailoring it for the bulk of the field.

He missed a lot of putts. Deal with it.

Here is another thing... as Bogey likely remembers when we played Erin Hills, a lot of rain can turn that place to chocolate pudding.  Weather patterns in the last several time frames of USGA Open June setting have been great rain periods.  I'm sure they have great modern drainage systems in the ground there.  Yet... we may be eventually having some discussion about how Erin Hills didn't take usual heavy late spring early summer rain this area often gets into consideration of green prep or spectator and facility planning.  It just goes to show... it is always something, if it isn''t one thing it is the next...

[Tom_Doak]

Nowhere did I say that Johnson deserved to win ... if he'd hit wedge into a par-4 18th he might still have 3-putted.


But if you think that Spieth wasn't comforted by not having to face the tee shot he detested on 18 -- especially after the way he played #17 -- you are not being honest with yourselves.


To me, the setup should be more standardized.  What I proposed for the Olympics was to move the tee markers ten or twenty yards each day, so that golfers who drive the ball different lengths would face different carries from one day to the next, and have to think their way through it.  I think that's what Mike Davis set out to accomplish in his set-ups, but by now they vary SO much from one day to the next that he has opened the door to complaints of favoritism ... just like Colin Montgomerie still thinks the back-left hole locations on 17 and 18 at Congressional were a favor to Tom Lehman over himself.


Jordan Spieth certainly deserves his win for getting to the house with the lowest score, regardless of set-up or conditions or anything else.  However, set-ups DO help make winners and losers just as much as good bounces do, and playing the 18th as a par-5 helped Spieth ... just like he explained it.

[Carl Nichols]

Nowhere did I say that Johnson deserved to win ... if he'd hit wedge into a par-4 18th he might still have 3-putted.


But if you think that Spieth wasn't comforted by not having to face the tee shot he detested on 18 -- especially after the way he played #17 -- you are not being honest with yourselves.


To me, the setup should be more standardized.  What I proposed for the Olympics was to move the tee markers ten or twenty yards each day, so that golfers who drive the ball different lengths would face different carries from one day to the next, and have to think their way through it.  I think that's what Mike Davis set out to accomplish in his set-ups, but by now they vary SO much from one day to the next that he has opened the door to complaints of favoritism ... just like Colin Montgomerie still thinks the back-left hole locations on 17 and 18 at Congressional were a favor to Tom Lehman over himself.


Jordan Spieth certainly deserves his win for getting to the house with the lowest score, regardless of set-up or conditions or anything else.  However, set-ups DO help make winners and losers just as much as good bounces do, and playing the 18th as a par-5 helped Spieth ... just like he explained it.

Agree completely.  I have no reason to think Mike Davis is doing anything other than acting honorably by trying to present the course that he feels is the best setup each day.  But when the setups are so variable, and when it seems like he's the sole decisionmaker on the issue, it seems like there's a risk that the arrangement will be perceived as favoring some players (or styles of play) over others on a day-by-day basis. 

[Brent Hutto]

Back in the old days, say the 20th century, there was a concept that is sometimes referred to as "Caesar's Wife Must Be Above Suspicion". Under that sadly out of date philosophy, once Jordan Spieth had publicly declared his dislike for the "Par 4" version of the 18th hole and given that Mike Davis had already hinted that it would be set up as a "Par 4" for the final round, it would have behooved Davis to stick to the "Par 4" plan. The director of a National Championship many years ago would bend over backward to avoid any appearance or even suspicion of favoritism.


But that sort of thinking is as Old School as balata or playing in tweed jackets. Nowadays all publicity is good publicity and if the worlds most recognizable 21-year-old golfer wants to publicly petition the guy calling the shots then hey, it makes for great television!

[Greg Tallman]

It is rather ironic that Johnson, the power hitter, fit his tee shot on 18 into that narrow opening that Spieth, control player, complained of as an unfair target compared to the width beyond the bunkers.

[Jim Nugent]

It is rather ironic that Johnson, the power hitter, fit his tee shot on 18 into that narrow opening that Spieth, control player, complained of as an unfair target compared to the width beyond the bunkers.

Greg, I thought I read DJ was the only player all day to do that.  If so, that kind of makes Jordan's point.  And of course, DJ had a 5 iron into that green, where Spieth had 3 wood. 

[Bill Brightly]

I don't see how playing 18 as a par 5, which I agree is a better hole that way, helped Spieth.  Spieth hit a fantastic 3 wood to make birdie after missing his eagle putt.  Johnson only needed to hit a 5 iron into that green which was surely a significant advantage.  Spieth was fortunate that Johnson could not make either putt but I don't see that playing it as a par 5 was to his advantage.

Jerry,

I'll explain why I think it was an advantage to Speith. Lost in all the drama at the 18th green is what a huge risk DJ took on the tee with his driver. This was not just another one of his 330 bombs to a very wide fairway: here is risked a terrible lie if he missed the very narrow landing area. He pulled it off and hit a truly amazing tee shot, especially given the circumstances.

Speith played short of the bunkers on the left and was willing to go for the green with 3 wood. As a par 5, he had to be satisfied that the bombers needed to thread a ball to the right of these bunkers as DJ did. As a par 4, the bombers can fly these bunkers and Speith can't. THAT is the scenario he did not want to face. 

In other words, the best a shorter hitter can hope for is that the really long hitters risk paying a price for their aggressiveness, not be rewarded because they can fly it past all the trouble.

I do think Speith's talk of playing down the first fairway was a huge factor to Mike Davis. That would have been very embarrassing.

[Brent Hutto]

Speith played short of the bunkers on the left and was willing to go for the green with 3 wood. As a par 5, he has to be happy that the bombers needed to thread a ball to the right of these bunkers as DJ did. As a par 4, the bombers can fly these bunkers and Speith can't. THAT is the scenario he did not want to face. 

Exactly.


Jordan opined that he wanted the scenario that let himself play safe and forced longer hitters to take on a great risk in order to gain advantage from their length. Of course that's his preference, he knows his game.


As it turns out he was granted his best-case scenario when the tee was placed in "Par 5" mode on Sunday. If it had been "Par 4" mode as originally indicated by Mike Davis then Dustin would have been hitting wedge into the green and Jordan would have been the one forced to thread the needle or else face a more difficult approach.


Now heck, maybe Mike Davis planned on playing 18 in "Par 5" mode Sunday all along. Maybe saying it was going to be a "Par 4" was just a wind-up for the media. Or maybe Mike Davis wanted to have the 72nd hole of the US Open play into Jordan's strengths rather than Dustin's. We will never know.

[Peter Pallotta]

As I opined earlier, CB represents a choice to formalize flexibility via the hand of man rather than to accept/embrace the randomness of nature's effects.* But as I've also noted before, Mr. Davis was clearly not satisfied with having the architect alone determine (via, for example, the green contours and extreme length) the degree or nature of that flexibility, and was not even content to add himself into the mix with his (inevitable) drivable Par 4s. No, he also felt compelled (ego? the smartest guy in the room? a contempt for architects, architecture and professional golfers alike?) to start playing with "par", and not just once or on one golf hole. If he was influenced by Speith's comments it was only because even he knew/realized that he'd been too smart by half -- and that there is indeed something called "good golf course architecture" and that Par 5s can, sometimes, actually mean something more than just a number to be manipulated by an egghead, and that a Par 5 is designed, in many ways, to specifically play that way and for a reason.

Peter

* Nonetheless, after 4 days of looking at it, I grew quite fond of the course, which seems a fine championship venue.

[Jim Nugent]

Speith played short of the bunkers on the left and was willing to go for the green with 3 wood. As a par 5, he has to be happy that the bombers needed to thread a ball to the right of these bunkers as DJ did. As a par 4, the bombers can fly these bunkers and Speith can't. THAT is the scenario he did not want to face. 

Exactly.


Jordan opined that he wanted the scenario that let himself play safe and forced longer hitters to take on a great risk in order to gain advantage from their length. Of course that's his preference, he knows his game.


As it turns out he was granted his best-case scenario when the tee was placed in "Par 5" mode on Sunday. If it had been "Par 4" mode as originally indicated by Mike Davis then Dustin would have been hitting wedge into the green and Jordan would have been the one forced to thread the needle or else face a more difficult approach.


Now heck, maybe Mike Davis planned on playing 18 in "Par 5" mode Sunday all along. Maybe saying it was going to be a "Par 4" was just a wind-up for the media. Or maybe Mike Davis wanted to have the 72nd hole of the US Open play into Jordan's strengths rather than Dustin's. We will never know.

Brent, you realize the 18th was designed and built as a par 5.  It always played as a par 5 as well, until Mike Davis decided to do his tinkering.  IIRC, you are among those who complained about Mike inserting himself too much in the equation.  By keeping it as a par 5, he was not meddling, but maintaining the course in its original configuration.  That also meant keeping #1 as it was designed and built.  But now you are saying he should have meddled more, and amputated 100+ yards off the hole, in the process artificially giving a huge advantage to the bombers in the field?   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()