The responsibility of setting up the golf course...

[Ted Sturges]

Let me preface this by saying that I am a retired USGA Committee person, having served Indiana for 13 years on the USGA Sectional Affairs Committee.  During my 13 year tenure, I had the responsibility of assisting my fellow Indiana USGA Committee persons with setting up the golf courses for the USGA Championship Qualifiers in our state.  So...nothing hurts my soul more than watching a USGA Championship where the Championship Committee Members are being criticized for negatively impacting the championship through errors made in their course set-up.


This brings me to my question: 


The USGA seems to have a sizeable lead on the championship committees of The Open Championship, The PGA Championship and The Masters in terms of championship events that have been marred by mistakes made by those responsible for setting up the golf courses for the championships.  Each organization's championship committee is faced with several of the same variables when preparing the venue for their championship (acknowledging that The Masters enjoys a big advantage of playing the event at the same course each year).  My question is, why has the USGA distinguished itself as the "leaders" in creating issues at their championships compared to the other 3 organizations?  My heart breaks for them each time this has happened...but let's face it, it has happened frequently...and it continues to happen.


TS

[Ira Fishman]

In my completely amateur view:


1. The other majors do not care about final score in relationship to Par.


2. It is hard to blame one person, but I have been watching the US Open since 1971, and I only remember two bad set ups until Mike Davis took over responsibility. Those were Winged Foot in 1974 and Shinnecock in 2004.


Ira

[Scott Warren]

The great irony of it all is that the USGA’s semi-frequent setup disasters tend to occur in the name of “defending” par, when the USGA has a separate lever available to it (equipment regulation) that would make that job eminently easier without pushing golf courses to breaking point.


Mike Davis does seem to love it, doesn’t he. I couldn’t tell you the name of the other majors’ setup guys. Like referees or umpires in other sports, that probably means those people are doing their job well.

[Ted Sturges]

In my completely amateur view:


1. The other majors do not care about final score in relationship to Par.


2. It is hard to blame one person, but I have been watching the US Open since 1971, and I only remember two bad set ups until Mike Davis took over responsibility. Those were Winged Foot in 1974 and Shinnecock in 2004.






Ira

Ira,


Does not the Masters decision to "Tiger proof" ANGC refute your first point?


As for your second point, you are forgetting: (1) the bad hole location on the 18th hole at The Olympic Club in 1998, and (2) the 260 yard carry to the beginning of the 10th hole fairway at Bethpage in 2002 (which many in the field could not reach when the wind blew into them).  Those are two that I can think of off the top of my head...but I think there are others. 


And...as you note, more in the Mike Davis era.


TS

[Ted Sturges]

The great irony of it all is that the USGA’s semi-frequent setup disasters tend to occur in the name of “defending” par, when the USGA has a separate lever available to it (equipment regulation) that would make that job eminently easier without pushing golf courses to breaking point.


Mike Davis does seem to love it, doesn’t he. I couldn’t tell you the name of the other majors’ setup guys. Like referees or umpires in other sports, that probably means those people are doing their job well.

Really, really good points Scott.


TS

[Peter Pallotta]

Ted - I really appreciate your post and your perspective. I think one answer to your question may be a simple one, ie the reason the USGA's set-ups draw the most attention is because the USGA is the organization that draws the most attention to *itself*, especially when it comes to set-ups.
Peter
PS - I see that Scott made much the same point earlier.

[William_G]

remains with the superintendent and their team.

Well done Jon Jennings and Team

USGA 

[Pete Lavallee]

What was the genesis of the USGA controlling the setup? I,m guessing Johnny Miller,s win at Oakmont had a lot to do with it. Realistically, if left to the home club the course would no doubt be setup too hard, who wants guys to go low on their home course at the US Open. I see the need for the USGA to get involved but their rigid adherence to an even par finish just gets in the way!

[Mike Sweeney]

remains with the superintendent and their team.

Well done Jon Jennings and Team

USGA 

I saw an interview with Jon Jennings where he said 2004 could never happen again because of technology. Well it happened again, at least for a few hours on Saturday.


Jon came from Chicago GC and I wonder how much information he gets the old fashioned way - at Southampton Golf Club? Historically, almost all of the East End Supers were members at Southampton Golf Club and there was a lot of shared information in that group.


The over reliance on technology in many areas of life is just that - an over reliance. If you are in an airplane that hits geese on takeoff, do you want a computer programmer to land your plane or do you want Captain Sully Sullenberger USAF to land your plane? Me, I want the former Air Force fighter pilot to land my plane. Certainly technology helps people make better decisions, but it is time for the USGA to:

• Bring in a different voice that is not Mike Davis to do course set-ups and run championships,
• Have a different group to deal with the technology issues,
• Have a separate group to organize/simplify rules,
• Finally, have a group to support the regular golfers, which includes subcommittees for women and minorities.

The USGA Executive Director should encourage/facilitate friction between those four groups, and he/she should not be part or member of any of those groups.

[Jim Nugent]

In my completely amateur view:


1. The other majors do not care about final score in relationship to Par.


Ira

Ira,

Does not the Masters decision to "Tiger proof" ANGC refute your first point?

I don't think the Masters has tried to protect par since 1997: the winners have virtually always finished well under par... often reach double digits... and have gone -16 twice and even -18.  I've never heard a word of grumbling about that.

Tiger-proofing was the Masters' way of maintaining 'shot values.'  ANGC doesn't want the players hitting wedges or 9-irons into par 5s for their second shots.  Tiger was doing that, and in general turning the masterpiece into a drive, pitch and putt layout.   

So I agree with Ira on this. 

[William_G]

Mike S,

Jon and team did a great job and did all that was asked of them as directed by the USGA.

[Kyle Harris]

In order to make a reasonable conclusion based on the premise given in the first post, one would first have to buy into the premise.


Other then a bunch of people agreeing on the premise, by what metric can we validate the original premise?


What should the result have been at the conclusion of play Saturday? Why does the set up of Holes 37-54 merit more attention than the previous 36 or subsequent 18?


It is highly unlikely than anyone posting here is privy to the conversations or series of events the lead up to this particular, or any other, US Open. So a speculative premise that is only supported by the loud voices of a few shared opinions feels and seems a rather tenuous position from which to move forward.

[Ted Sturges]

In order to make a reasonable conclusion based on the premise given in the first post, one would first have to buy into the premise.


Other then a bunch of people agreeing on the premise, by what metric can we validate the original premise?


What should the result have been at the conclusion of play Saturday? Why does the set up of Holes 37-54 merit more attention than the previous 36 or subsequent 18?


It is highly unlikely than anyone posting here is privy to the conversations or series of events the lead up to this particular, or any other, US Open. So a speculative premise that is only supported by the loud voices of a few shared opinions feels and seems a rather tenuous position from which to move forward.

Kyle,


My original premise is that the USGA has "messed up" the course set up of the Men's US Open over the years at a significantly higher rate than the other 3 major championships.  And...to ask, why is that?  I don't think that premise is speculative, or the question unreasonable. I believe enough evidence exists to accept that premise.


TS

[Peter Pallotta]

Ted -
I think it's also because the USGA is a large organization, and like any large organization it's an 'organism' that is focused on its own growth and that's increasingly driven by its own internal dynamics and needs, and thus spends more and more time & effort on marketing/branding & self promotion exercises and a search for continued relevance -- such that it can quickly lose sight of the main purpose(s) it was originally intended to fill and the client(s) it was intended to serve.  And, like any large organization-organism, over the years it inevitably becomes bigger and less nimble and more top-heavy, and takes on the structure of an upside-down triangle: more and more people/administrators at the top, jockeying for position and pursuing greater responsibility and needing to justify at every moment their place in the hierarchy/pecking order, and less and less people at the bottom of the triangle, struggling to honour the primary mandates-duties that the organization was first meant to manage-fulfill.  And, again like any large organization, it will increasingly be led not by the 'technocrats' but by the 'careerists', ie those who want (and are best able and equipped) to navigate the complex maze of internal politics and human relations in order to rise to the very top of the structure -- and such careerists are usually celebrated by and gravitate towards and are magnets for other such ambitious souls who keep score (mainly) in terms of their own personal success and profile, and so the culture of the organization slowly but surely starts to reflect that particular value system. Imagine a leader (but of course, such a 'leader' doesn't exist) who gets to the very top only to smartly and happily hand over the running/set-up of a major event to those who most know what they are doing, i.e. in this case, to the Sectional Committee members who live and work locally and who know the people and the climate best and who are less inclined to be thinking about the next step in the ladder and instead can focus on the task at hand? Might that not impact/positively affect every aspect of a USGA event?
Peter

[Jim Franklin]

Just wait until August and watch the PGA totally mess up Bellerive.

[Lou_Duran]

Ted,

The USGA did fine.  People would bitch if the winning score was -10 (and the members would be pissed, especially after the course was dropped from the rota).

I suppose the USGA could cut the size of the field, go to morning and afternoon shotguns, and irrigate the greens between waves.  Or it can continue to use its best judgment in conjunction with the home course superintendent and allow the competition to go forward as it has for so many years.

And thank you for your service.  I don't think most people know the amount of work and dedication it takes to run the qualifiers.  I personally don't have the commitment to join a committee if invited, but I appreciate those who give up 30+ days each year to further the game.

[Pat Burke]

Seems absurd to pick a course like Shinnecock, ramp the speed up to the point where some great hole locations aren't even possible, and then push dry and firm to where even the few locations can be twitchy.


I would imagine even a foot slower would have opened up a number of great hole locations?  2 feet slower and it may have actually been Shinnecock again!!

[A.G._Crockett]

Seems absurd to pick a course like Shinnecock, ramp the speed up to the point where some great hole locations aren't even possible, and then push dry and firm to where even the few locations can be twitchy.


I would imagine even a foot slower would have opened up a number of great hole locations?  2 feet slower and it may have actually been Shinnecock again!!

I think this is the point.
There is no reason other than "protecting par" to do what the USGA does to one degree or another every year; there just isn't.  The archive of over-the-top setups is epic. 

At the other three majors, weather is the variable from day to day; at the US Open, you can add the greens to that.  Where else would a discussion of whether or not to water the greens DURING PLAY happen?  Where else would you see Tour pros lose their s**t because of silly situations on the greens?
A quick story: My son is an assistant superintendent at a course that last year hosted a national USGA tournament.  The USGA sent them hole signs for the course, and the staff had to use a post hole digger to put up the USGA signage on 4x4 posts. You could argue the need for the USGA signage to begin with, of course, but that's not the end.
All the signs were in place by the time the USGA staff got there the week before the tournament, but the guys in the blue sports jackets decided that the signs weren't tall enough, and all 18 of the hole signs had to be dug up and "replanted" to be two feet taller.  This was being done by a staff that was working 14 hour days already, while they needed and wanted to be doing things that had to do with actually playing golf.
There is a reason that the superintendent and his staff make the decisions about all things turf related at all good golf course.  Frost delays, aeration schedules, cart path only, when to close the course, when to water the greens, where to mow and what height, and on and on and on.  Supers and the staff know the grasses on their golf course like they know their own children, and take the care and feeding just about as seriously. 

The USGA running a tournament is like having a drunk babysitter take care of your kids; if it ends well, it's a lucky accident.

[Ted Sturges]

Ted,

The USGA did fine.  People would bitch if the winning score was -10 (and the members would be pissed, especially after the course was dropped from the rota).

I suppose the USGA could cut the size of the field, go to morning and afternoon shotguns, and irrigate the greens between waves.  Or it can continue to use its best judgment in conjunction with the home course superintendent and allow the competition to go forward as it has for so many years.

And thank you for your service.  I don't think most people know the amount of work and dedication it takes to run the qualifiers.  I personally don't have the commitment to join a committee if invited, but I appreciate those who give up 30+ days each year to further the game.

Lou,


I'm having a little bit of a hard time with the part of your answer that says "The USGA did fine".  At a minimum, they had two poor hole locations on Saturday.  In my 13 years running qualifiers, I set one bad hole location and I felt absolutely terrible about my actions negatively impacting that event. First, it is hard for me to understand how an experienced rules/course prep person can get a bad hole location (ever).  How many do you see on the PGA tour each year?  I was a "part-timer", and had one in the 40-50 events I was responsible for.  Second...I don't believe you come to Shinnecock with the thought that you need to trick up the hole locations.  Shinnecock stands on it's own...you could put all the holes in the dead middle of the greens and you'd still have a great championship. 


The training I received had me doing my best to anticipate any hole location problems due to changing conditions during the day.  We do this by putting at the proposed hole location from every angle before cutting the hole and considering how it will play if conditions get faster.  It is obvious that the PGA tour does this successfully (personally, I can't remember a bad PGA tour hole location...not even one...in the last 30 years), so why can't the USGA accomplish this? 


One thought I have is to have the USGA pull Slugger White and his team into their event and admit that they are "part-timers", and have more seasoned professionals do this work for them.  Wouldn't the event be better if they did?  How many more mishaps must we endure before we decide upon a more thoughtful approach?  The definition of insanity is taking the same approach over and over, expecting different results.


TS

[jeffwarne]

Ted,

The USGA did fine.  People would bitch if the winning score was -10 (and the members would be pissed, especially after the course was dropped from the rota).

No Lou-they did not.
The USGA would not have issued an apology and commented on their mistakes had they "done fine"
Respectfully we disagree.
As you rightfully point out, people will always bitch (as evidenced by me and others here about this year---and the "bitching" last year about Erin being too soft which was an act of nature and no one's "fault" as USGA the setup was properly preemptive)
As you also know being a successful person, you don't run an organization based on eliminating "bitching" but rather on doing the right thing,erring on the side of caution, and in this case, using your experience to  avoid the very thing that had been promised would not happen -AGAIN.
I personally do not evalutate an event by winning score, and as Pat properly points out, having healthy greens (that are not damaged by the inept overactive hand of man) would unveil and allow multiple testing pins and Shinnecock could have been Shinnecock, rather than an evil twin in a tattered blue coat.


Would scores have been lower?
Yes, on Thursday as the greens wouldn't have been plinko.(fair for all just shitty)
On Saturday-definitely for the second 1/2 of the field.
On Sunday, no they'd probably have been higher-because they would'nt have have to do what they ALWAYS seem to be doing-OVERREACTING- and in this case overwatering and therefore oversoftening dead turf to get the event in.


It could just be the fact that I'm just bothered that 400 yard drives have been signed off on but the tattered jacket revenge for their regulation inaction is to have the player require 4-5 more shots to cover the last 40 (well now last 120) yards

[jeffwarne]

Seems absurd to pick a course like Shinnecock, ramp the speed up to the point where some great hole locations aren't even possible, and then push dry and firm to where even the few locations can be twitchy.


I would imagine even a foot slower would have opened up a number of great hole locations?  2 feet slower and it may have actually been Shinnecock again!!

This says it far better than I can

[jeffwarne]

  At a minimum, they had two poor hole locations on Saturday.  In   I was a "part-timer", and had one in the 40-50 events I was responsible for.  Second...I don't believe you come to Shinnecock with the thought that you need to trick up the hole locations.  Shinnecock stands on it's own...


 How many more mishaps must we endure before we decide upon a more thoughtful approach?  The definition of insanity is taking the same approach over and over, expecting different results.


TS

Of course this is spot on as well.

[jeffwarne]

 Supers and the staff know the grasses on their golf course like they know their own children, and take the care and feeding just about as seriously. 

The USGA running a tournament is like having a drunk babysitter take care of your kids; if it ends well, it's a lucky accident.

More proof that others believe the USGA did not do "fine" (unless you just have zero expectations for them besides a well run merchandise tent)


Lou,
You spoke in an earlier thread about Mike Davis "staying in his lane"
He has been involved in the redesign of 4 greens at next door Sebonack to presumably assist them in getting the Open in the last 2020's.
Is that more of him "staying in his lane"


I'd like him to get completely out of his lane, and pull off the road.

[Lou_Duran]

Years ago, I was taking a lesson from one of Hank Haney's assistants in the converted stables in McKinney, TX while Hank was working with an older gentleman a couple stations behind me.  During a lull while looking at film, we hear a frustrated Hank tell his student that his swing was in so many different planes that he didn't know which one to look at.  Tim lost it, and I was pretty much done for the day.  Such is this thread.

Ted, you know the expression "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good".  If only two out of 72 hole locations were bad, that is a pretty good batting average, particularly considering the unexpected changes in the weather.  Perhaps where you worked in Indiana the volunteers were of an extremely high quality.  Or maybe the venues had relatively tame green complexes.  Quite possibly you could anticipate the weather, and maybe encountered fewer extremes.  And you were just setting up qualifiers with a wide range of abilities to identify who might handle the strict test that is the US Open.

I am not or will be an Official in Charge, so my experience in setting up a golf course is ensuring that the OIC's tee and hole locations are where he wanted them.  In both TGA and USGA events, there are always complaints about hole locations and pace of play, especially when it is windy.  I've even had competitors complain that the organizations failed to provide spotters.  People bitch, golfers are people, critics and malcontents take special delight in picking fault.

BTW, some of our better OICs have figured things out.  They set up the course to get golfers around fast and allow more than ample time to finish the round (4:45+ for threesomes with 10 minute starting times and a break between waves).  Of course, this makes for a long day, but who likes complaints?

So, in my world, fine means acceptable, not perfect.  Golfers with whom I've been in contact with since the US Open aren't bothered by the pros struggling some on the greens as many of us do on a regular basis.

As to my comment that Davis stays in his lane, do we know that Davis himself designed those new holes?  Is Sebonack, a club whose founding members paid $1 Million to join, going to take commands from an inept Davis?  Is the course forced to hold a US Open?  If the USGA is made up of a bunch of bumbling miscreants, why would all these clubs allow them to set foot on their site?   If we wanted to watch our national professional championship played on courses with "fair" hole locations, why not do a joint venture with the Greater Milwaukee Open and just add the USGA logo to the signage?  Perhaps not embarrassing the Tour players should be the objective, without regard to identifying the best.

BTW, I could write horror stories about some of my experiences with the USGA over the years.  It took a long time for me to understand that I am but a part of a very small group of stakeholders in our game, and that perhaps an institution must look beyond the narrow interests of some for the good of the game.  Unlike some in this DG, I don't claim to have all the answers and certainly have no desire to tell others how to enjoy the game.   

[Tim Martin]

It’s funny that players would think that spotters are a right or requirement. Any help that a player receives from a spotter is incidental as they are positioned to facilitate pace of play.