[Peter Pallotta]

Sort of seems like Bill & Ben knew all along, and got the fairway widths right the first time. But I suppose that deep down those in charge didn't want what Ben (& Bill) were selling - ie the perspective of a 2 time major champion who won on a wide golf course.
p

[jeffwarne]

The greens definitely looked slow and bumpy...how is that possible?  Slow I get, I assume they backed off the mower heights a bit due to the wind...I can’t get my head around the bumpy part...

Spot on-I played Rockaway Hunt Club in an event Monday-Very windy-greens super firm, baked and perfect-I was off at 1;58 in a 144 man field and the greens were perfectly smooth, very firm/hard(no sign of a ballmark or any spikemarks) and fast.



When Shinnecock hosts a 4 Day Member-Guest the greens are perfect.
So what's different when an Open comes to town and all hell breaks loose on a typical east end breezy day?
Let that sink in for a minute.


# no need for multiple agronomists, moisture sensors, and "set up" rock stars.
Let the Superintendant do his job and present his product without all the "experts"


But there's no money in doing less.


To be fair they look much smoother today

[Kalen Braley]

If this continues, this could be another y2k Pebble-eque rout with DJ bearing claws and teeth this time...

[Lou_Duran]

Do certain set-ups help or hurt certain competitors?
Of course.  Speed up the greens and the best putters will be advantaged.  Firm them up and the guys who can hit fairways and soft, high approaches get a leg up.  Widen the fairways and/or lighten the rough, and the bomb and gouge types reign.

And if so, why do the players accept putting so much control in one official (Mike Davis) or one organization (USGA) to set-up the course after each day on a whim?
Nothing is done by the USGA on a whim.  Whether or not we like their policies and impact on the game, these are smart, accomplished people; doers not navel gazers.  More than 9k players attempted to qualify for this US Open.  No one is forcing the marquee players from "accepting" the conditions of play.  That Mike Davis has been able to earn so much power and responsibility in an organization made up of many highly qualified, distinguished individuals more than answers the question.   

Are there any events where course set-up (tee, hole locations) is detailed prior to the event? 
Most players have a very good idea where the tees and hole locations will be during the course of a tournament, though not necessarily the combination on any given day.  At lesser events, I've seen dots on greens and tees before the first round for the superintendent to set up the course.  It is not unusual to see players putt to spots on different sections of the greens during practice rounds.

Why shorten holes into the wind?  Do we move in the fences in baseball?
In extreme conditions, maybe so the holes would play as intended? 

jeffwarne-  you must live in a world I am not familiar with.  In mine, where deferred maintenance sometimes into seven figures is not unusual, doing more with less is the norm.

I suppose I can understand how those who play their best golf between the ears with a keyboard on their laps might dismiss the importance of course setup.  How a veteran such as yourself can do so is inexplicable.  Cut the holes in the center of the greens, place the markers in the middle of the tee boxes, cut the grasses as you would for everyday play, and you no longer have a US Open, no matter how architecturally compelling the course is.  To suggest that more money is a problem, many of us wish we could trade.  BTW, I thought that brown is beautiful.  Having recently returned from the Buda where I played 11 courses, I suspect many there would join me. 

[Kalen Braley]

Lou,


I think all Jeff is really saying is, it seems to be much ado about nothing when it comes to course setup.  Think about it, if the USGA did absolutely nothing and showed up last Sunday to start putting things in place (Strictly pertaining to the golf course, not stands, tents, planning, etc), would Shinnecock really be that much different that it wouldn't be a great toon-a-mint?


At the end of the day, I'd guess at least 90% of what goes on is summed best with "But there's no money in doing less"


Just gawf your ball!

[Garland Bayley]

Lou,
You may think nothing is done by the USGA on a whim, but when they put in a bunker for the tournament, and the club takes it out after the tournament, it seems to me that is the definition of on a whim.

If Mike Davis is so smart, then why doesn't he hang out a shingle as a GCA, and be his own boss?

[Lou_Duran]

Kalen,

IMO, course setup is the third leg of the stool, architecture and the proper maintenance meld being the other two.  Not being afflicted by the tendencies of a critic, I find good architecture in most courses I visit, good to very good maintenance, but often, not a great deal of thought given to setting up the tees and hole locations to reflect weather conditions and the type of play on a given day.

I disagree with the suggestion that Shinny sans USGA input/direction would still suffice.  The US Open distinguishes itself based not only on the courses the USGA selects, but also how they are setup and presented.   There are any number of tournaments on courses with less preparation and if you think that -20 is compelling golf, then I guess setup is not a big deal.  I personally like that three of the four majors and the TPC are four distinct challenges, and they take up most of my TV time on golf.

As to money, I've been around a few wealthy people in my life and a common characteristic is that they don't waste it.  Your comment about the 90% is ludicrous, though perhaps self-satisfying.   I may not agree about how some people spend their money- why would anyone buy a Ferrari or a Rolls Royce?- but I only get worked up when other people want to take and spend mine.

BTW, is that daily-fee course by SLC still moth-balled?  Will it re-open one day?  Carts and all, I think that UT golf is highly underrated.

[jeffwarne]

Lou,
Brown IS beautiful. Bumpy is not
Did you not read my post about Rockaway?
Pure brown-pure firm-pure roll.


My point is when you have multiple agronomists, countless experts, a complex about your last fffup, an on site set up guy for months or years...
how on earth (on day ONE)do you present greens that roll untrue like plinko with the final rolls are completely random as the ball slows-and many putts lurch immediately offline?
Players will always struggle when wind and firmness demand excellent shotmaking-the trouble is there was no recovery yesterday because NOBODY made a putt outside 6 feet.Where's the skill separation when everyone is missing?


To be fair the greens are MUCH better today-rolling much smoother.


Has nothing to do with too much money, but rather justifying one's(the USGA) existence by doing something (or rather too much)


I champion unirrigated simple courses and admire courses that do more with less.
In fact I'm leaving for Ireland tomorrow to play 6 courses in four days whose combined budgets wouldn't exceed your average US course.And I can guarantee you every one of those greens will putt truer than what we saw yesterday


Where the quote by you directed at me came from is a real mystery.
I'm all about brown, rough and ready-I'm not about justifying an existence-especially when the course regularly and routinely presents itself perfectly every single year an Open ISN'T played there.


I enjoyed the difficulty yesterday-I was bummed when the wind didn't blow for 6 days in 2004.
I like the course playing tough-I like the tough pins etc. I even applaud the lenght added (if they will not address equipment)
I do NOT applaud resodding turf for one week of the year.
I strongly disagree that the score would be -20 if the USGA didn't take over, and in fact I suspect they originally toook over for fear Suprintendants and Clubs would go over the edge with setup if left to their own devices.


This is the same organization that brought us the Open Doctor-in hindsight we can all see the folly in that era.
Questioning authority is not a bad thing and is generally not popular, but we'd be better off if more did, and perhaps at some point we could return our game to sustainability and sanity.

[Lou_Duran]

Lou,
You may think nothing is done by the USGA on a whim, but when they put in a bunker for the tournament, and the club takes it out after the tournament, it seems to me that is the definition of on a whim.

If Mike Davis is so smart, then why doesn't he hang out a shingle as a GCA, and be his own boss?

In the big picture, adding a bunker that then gets filled is not a whim.  It may not follow the logic of 0 and 1s of your imprinting, but it can make sense.  How about putting up all the infrastructure to hold a tournament?  A lot of things are temporary, even the initial efforts of many great classic era architects.

As to Mike Davis, compared to the collective top 10% of this DG, he would fare very well.  With the money he makes, the benefits, and the impact he has, why would he want to struggle as a golf architect?

And what makes you think that the ability of putting a good course on the ground qualifies the architect to running a large, diverse organization that must consider the wants and needs of many different stakeholders.  Look up the halo effect and consider the implications.  There are any number of people who because they do one thing very well think that they are experts in any number of others.  I doubt that Mike Davis suffers from such an affliction.  He seems to stay in his lane rather well.

[Jonathan Mallard]

Lou,
You may think nothing is done by the USGA on a whim, but when they put in a bunker for the tournament, and the club takes it out after the tournament, it seems to me that is the definition of on a whim.

If Mike Davis is so smart, then why doesn't he hang out a shingle as a GCA, and be his own boss?

As to Mike Davis, compared to the collective top 10% of this DG, he would fare very well.  With the money he makes, the benefits, and the impact he has, why would he want to struggle as a golf architect?

And what makes you think that the ability of putting a good course on the ground qualifies the architect to running a large, diverse organization that must consider the wants and needs of many different stakeholders.  Look up the halo effect and consider the implications.  There are any number of people who because they do one thing very well think that they are experts in any number of others.  I doubt that Mike Davis suffers from such an affliction.  He seems to stay in his lane rather well.

Interesting thesis, Lou. Especially the second paragraph given the resumes of Jesse Ventura, Al Franken, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, and Donald Trump. Funny thing is, all 5 of them managed to convince others that they were competent to apply their skill set they demonstrated excellence in as adaptable to many other applications.


If you want a golf example, why not talk about Jack Nicklaus and discuss his abilities to run not only a golf tournament, but manufacturing enterprises. Greg Norman is noted as being very successful running a multi-national organization with many different operational focus areas.

[Lou_Duran]

Jeff,

What was the quote I attributed to you?   "There is no money in doing less."?   I guess that I don't see the USGA's need to justify itself.  The US Open is its tournament, and with apologies to my British friends, I don't think it takes a backseat to any other.

As to questioning authority, you are preaching to a devout libertarian.  At the same time, my enthusiasm for popping the man the bird was lost many years back.  For the most part, I am happy to be left largely alone.  Nothing the USGA has done causes me great concern, knowing as I do that the organization must balance the needs and desires of many diverse constituents.  Over the years I have had the opportunity to rub shoulders with numerous dedicated volunteers and officials of the USGA.  Contrary to what gets posted here, they typically give great thought to what they do and, in most cases, get it at least directionally right.

Your admiration for minimalist maintenance and sustainability is laudable.  I am of the Tom Paul school that golf is a big world, and, in mine, I prefer a Royal Dornoch and Cruden Bay to a Golspie and Brora.  That is not to say that I don't appreciate the considerable value and fun afforded by the latter two, but my life is made better by being able to enjoy the broader range (though I passed on paying £265 for Trump International and wasn't thrilled about the £180 fee for TOC).  There are people and golf markets which are not financially constrained.  Imposing austerity or attempting to cloak it with virtue does not move me, though living within one's means certainly does.

Jonathan,

I am not implying that an individual can only be successful in one field.  Garland was suggesting that Davis was not so smart or he would be designing courses.  I am stating that just because Davis is an effective leader with the USGA that no matter how smart he is, it does not by itself qualify him to be a gca.  And vice versa, being an accomplished designer does not make one a qualified USGA head, an economist, business analyst, etc.

As to the examples you have given, only Reagan and perhaps Norman have demonstrated exceptional career stretch.  Nicklaus had a bad run in the automobile business and nearly went bankrupt in golf development (ironically, Trump left him off some very bad contracts to build courses for him that would have wiped-out the Nicklaus organization).  Nicklaus and Norman both have leveraged their brands created as golfers, and, ironically, in the area most related to where they earned their spurs, golf architecture, neither is considered to have achieved critical acclaim.    Are you making a case for the second careers of those others you mention?    Al Franken, Jesse Ventura, The Terminator?  Please!!!

[Garland Bayley]

In the big picture, adding a bunker that then gets filled is not a whim.

Can they produce a scientific analysis and justification that the bunker resulted in whatever outcome they envisioned for it? I think not! No one will ever know if it remotely had the desired effect. All they can do is make conjectures. That I call a whim.

 It may not follow the logic of 0 and 1s of your imprinting, but it can make sense.  How about putting up all the infrastructure to hold a tournament? 




A lot of things are temporary, even the initial efforts of many great classic era architects.

Really? You are comparing infrastructure needed for crowd control to course architectural changes? Really?

As to Mike Davis, compared to the collective top 10% of this DG, he would fare very well.  With the money he makes, the benefits, and the impact he has, why would he want to struggle as a golf architect?

Why would someone want to answer to and make justifications to a bunch of moneyed people used to getting their way when instead they could call all the shots on their own doing something they love.

And what makes you think that the ability of putting a good course on the ground qualifies the architect to running a large, diverse organization

Never made an attempt to say it did.

 that must consider the wants and needs of many different stakeholders.  Look up the halo effect and consider the implications.  There are any number of people who because they do one thing very well think that they are experts in any number of others.  I doubt that Mike Davis suffers from such an affliction.  He seems to stay in his lane rather well.

Have You really been paying attention to him sounding off on GCA?

[jeffwarne]

Jeff,
   I guess that I don't see the USGA's need to justify itself.

I couldn't agree more.


and agreed about the volunteers

[Thomas Dai]

In summary based on what I’ve seen so far....from tee to green seems fine, on the green not convinced.
Atb

[BHoover]

Dustin Johnson seems to have had no issues with course setup.

[A.G._Crockett]

The slope rating for the Open course shows up as 140, with a course rating of 74.7.
When I plug 140 and my current index of 6.5 into the USGA course handicap calculator, I find that I would be getting 8 shots from a scratch golfer.  Put another way, every 4 rounds or so at Shinnecock, FROM THE OPEN TEES, I should be expected to shoot something around an 83. 

Raise your hand if you think you could EVER break 85 on the course that we are seeing on TV. 

With cut was +8, we have a golf course on which Tour pros ON AVERAGE are barely able to play scratch golf.  Without getting buried or sidetracked in the math of the handicap system, and taking +4 as a reasonable (and conservative!) guess as an index for Tour pros, is that the golf course we are seeing?

There are THREE players at even or better in the tournament after two rounds, with only DJ under par, and it is entirely possible that by Sunday evening, there won't be anybody under par..

You can say whatever you want about Mike Davis, the USGA, course setups, etc.  But the simple fact is that Shinnecock is NOT playing the way that the USGA says it should be playing. 

Just another reason that I quit sending the USGA money for a membership several years ago; all I was getting was a cheaply made, ill-fitting cap and a bag tag.

[jeffwarne]

Dustin Johnson seems to have had no issues with course setup.

agreed and he played in bad half of draw(Friday late afternoon was much better)
greens were much better Friday


No problems with setup(Heck Phil Mickelson was among driving accuracy leaders:)-just a few questions/observations why greens were SO bumpy day 1 with SO much expertise,time, and resources---and I do applaud the USGA's quest for firmness to reward the highest quality shots in the wind

[corey miller]

Mark brings up an interesting point about the run-off areas.  I thought the only change from the Coore & Crenshaw restoration was the narrowed fairways.  I can actually understand that concept but why does Davis need to create short grass and chipping areas when they don't exist?

That makes him and architect not a set-up guy and IMO that is highly problematic.  Can he shrink greens on some holes to suit his purpose? 

Is The USGA currently playing architecture god at LACC a year after a well-received restoration?

[Kalen Braley]

Lou,


Wingpointe near the airport is indeed RIP. They had a window, but they've let it go...they'd have to redo the entire thing now to bring it back.


P.S.  Agreed on Utah public golf.  Very cheap, underrated, and you rarely have an issue getting tee times on Sunday!

[jeffwarne]

Pretty simple....


DJ shouldve made 13 on 18 on Friday.


The USGA CANNOT help itself.
They are the ones who admitted 2004 was a mistake.  (Many did not feel that way but the usga certainly vowed they would not repeat)
Yet theyve done it again on a 77 degree day with benign sea breezes.


I do find it entertaining -just not a proper test of golf and ridiculously unfair to afternoon players- when you played made a huge difference due to the COURSE being overmanipulated-not because of unpredictable weather such as you might get at an Open


How could they possibly screw this up again?

[William_G]

the USGA has blown it again and promised everyone it wouldn't

the play of the players should determine the US Open champion, not a group of course "set-up" gurus

Mike Davis is selling a great finish tomorrow, but the damage to the integrity of this $$$$$$$$ event has been done

this is Shinnecock, newly remodeled, a great course, yet here we are listening to Mike Davis, I mean do we really need this guy to put on a US Open at Shinnecock???

[jeffwarne]

the USGA has blown it again and promised everyone it wouldn't

the play of the players should determine the US Open champion, not a group of course "set-up" gurus

Mike Davis is selling a great finish tomorrow, but the damage to the integrity of this $$$$$$$$ event has been done

this is Shinnecock, newly remodeled, a great course, yet here we are listening to Mike Davis, I mean do we really need this guy to put on a US Open at Shinnecock???

+1
Time to resign


Lou hes  (davis)also redesigning Sebonack to help tgem attract the Open.
Is that staying in his lane?

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff, Totally agreed!

All that money, and prep, and eye balls, and gizmos, and this and that...


And they can't even predict a basic forecast a few hours out and put some more water on the greens?  Seems to be a fair bit of incompetence at work here.

[Tom_Doak]

Dustin Johnson seems to have had no issues with course setup.

Too Soon?  🙃

[Dan Herrmann]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()