[Terry Lavin]

Big storms rolling through the area now. Get ready for more Bomb-and-Dart golf.

[Adam Clayman]

Isn't the Elephant in the "low scores "room the flatter greens to accommodate stupid speeds?


Proving that faster flatter greens are not only an easier examination, of the purported best players, but, make the game dull as hell to watch.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

[size=78%]More contours?  Isn't tournament golf too much putting already?[/size]

I don't know what that means. Putting matters least at the highest levels of the game; ball striking is what matters most, far and away.


If you mean what you see on TV… well of course that has nothing to do with design or architecture, and simply more to do with the fact that they have cameras at every green.

[John Kavanaugh]

With the early tee times did anyone adjust their day to watch? They did this at the Masters and it almost ruined my life.

[Jon Wiggett]

Isn't the Elephant in the "low scores "room the flatter greens to accommodate stupid speeds?


Proving that faster flatter greens are not only an easier examination, of the purported best players, but, make the game dull as hell to watch.

Adam,


your thinking is spot on but the language (which has been set by the industry) is misleading which is why most people fail to understand what is really happening.


The greens are flatter but they are not quicker. Greens are always travel at the same speed which is 0mph or 0 kmph depending where in the world you are. The subject you are talking about is stimp reading which is a measurement of distance not speed. The maximum velocity of the ball when taking a stimp reading is always the same. The difference is how far out the ball rolls. The further the ball rolls the slower its actual average speed will be meaning when you use language talking about a 'fast green' what you are actually trying to describe is a slower average speed. Finally, because the ball is rolling slower when it gets to the hole it is more likely to drop thus the hole becomes a bigger target.


You may say it is the language that the general golfer uses but if respected people such as yourself were to start describing what is actually happening it would be a start to alter this misconception.


Jon

[Peter Flory]

For a bit more context, Medinah has a course rating of 78.3 and a slope of 152.

So, Justin Thomas shot 17.3 shots below the course rating?  And it is a tournament score?  That is going to absolutely wreck his handicap! 

Is this the most that any golfer in history has ever broken the course rating?  And if so, I wonder if JT will end up having the lowest handicap in golf history because of it. 

[William_G]

The Fedex gig has become the silly season 2.0


No doubt boring to watch but the mid-west/south/east coast gets all the events despite bad weather because of people, infrastructure and money


never have been a Medinah fan, boring, reminds me of Firestone


Don M. has great ideas


and then we get East Lake next week, boring boring boring


at least they are playing the ball down, geez


glad there are other things to do beside watch this crap

[Craig Sweet]

Watching the PGA Tour is boring...Scott is right.  Like i said after the PGA at Bethpage...few options....no test of ball striking skills....boring golf.

[Terry Lavin]

It may not be the most exciting golf, especially if one prefers to see pro golfers struggle, but I’ve been slack-jawed watching the precision of iron play into these greens. The bomb drives are a bit stultifying.

[John Kavanaugh]

I am currently at an undisclosed location without television service so I thought I would go to pgatour.com and watch some holes. They wanted to charge me!!! I am cutting the f-ing cable. Bye, Bye!!! I haven't been so happy to see the death of an industry since our town got a crematorium. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Newsflash...I found a bar with a television. One question. Did JT act like a sourpuss shouting 61?

[Bob Montle]

Is this Medinah or the Bob Hope Desert Classic?


Does anyone really enjoy these birdiefests on formerly great and challenging courses that have been neutered by the refusal of the ruling bodies to do a damn thing to rein in technology?


More sleep inducing than a bottle of melatonin washed down with a dram of Scotch.

+1

[John Kirk]

Well, Justin Thomas shot -25 to win.  Three finished -20 or better, and -16 tied for 5th.

Watching the tournament for a few hours, I conclude the weakness of the course is that putting and general green side play is way too easy.  Didn't they have this happen at the 2012 Ryder Cup, where the players were rolling putts in from everywhere?  Maybe that was at Hazeltine in 2016.

I think it's fair to suggest that Medinah #3 is old-fashioned as a professional tournament course, with insufficient short game challenge.  And like Bethpage Black, the course offered scant intrigue around the greens as television entertainment.  At least Bethpage had some big elevation changes.

[Wayne Wiggins, Jr.]

While not a thoroughly scientific analysis, this comparison is of interest to me:
Last two BMWs… Winning score at a wet Medinah was -25 for a par 72. Winning score at rain-soaked Aronimink was -21. So fairly similar.

• Medinah = narrow, tree-lined, deep rough, flattish greens
• Aronimink (post restoration) = wide fairways, medium rough, internally contoured greens

Both are super long (7,200+ yds.), but as Adam Scott said, length doesn’t matter to these guys. Width (or lack of it) doesn’t seem to matter either. The only maintenance ideal that matters is firmness, especially in the greens.
My take aways:

• Can’t help that the courses were wet.
• Can’t redesign an existing course to keep pros from going REALLY low.
• Who cares? Medinah and Aronimink are plenty challenging for me and everyone I play with, which is probably representative of 99.9% of all golfers who play these courses regularly especially the memberships.   

[Dave McCollum]

A toasty Pinehurst #2 for the US Am was way more interesting.  At the Open there, Kaymer was -9, but won by 8.  During the Am this year, guys won holes with pars and bogeys, and most of the highly ranked ams got eliminated.       

[Doug Wright]

I watched 15 minutes of golf at Medinah and three days of match play TV from Pinehurst. The US Amateur at Pinehurst was compelling, exciting golf. Yes, match play is more interesting than stroke play--at least to me--but the variability of results from offline shots due to the "weeds" just off the fairways, and the greens that rejected slightly misplaced shots, made the viewing captivating. Strategy, patience and short game variety and skill were on full display at the US Am. Most professionals playing for big $$ would hate Pinehurst #2, but as a test for unpaid glory #2 is unparalleled.

[William_G]

WW


My take is to schedule the events in a different area of the country or the world as the Northern Midwest and Northeast are terrible for weather when an event is outside over 4 days for long hours.

[Peter Pallotta]

When did Donald Ross do most of/finish his tinkering with #2? Was it around the time that steel shafted clubs replaced hickory, with pros not much later starting to realize & utilize the full potential of that technological change? 
I know it was years after the introduction of steel shafts, but its interesting that Ben Hogan won his first tournament, the North South, at Pinehurst #2, in 1942 -- with a heavy-shafted driver Byron Nelson had given him.
With Adam Scott's informed perspective in mind, it does feel like we're at a cross roads, i.e. that what had 'worked' for many years (ie lengthening & narrowing) doesn't work anymore; as Scott says, you can't make courses long enough for the pros, and driver is the easiest club in the bag for them, all of them, to hit far and straight (which negates the advantage that a truly/naturally great driver might otherwise have).
Sure, the weather etc; but it feels like Medinah is an example (like Merion etc etc, it seems to me) of a failed paradigm, an outdated conceit and aging methodology that had its time in the sun but that is now passe: a newspaper made out of paper, a land-line telephone, a floppy disk.   


   

[JWinick]

Many of the changes that Medinah made recently have improved the golf course.   There is noticeably less trees, especially around the greens.   But, the tree removal has made the golf course easier.   Additionally, the desire to increase green speeds has made the greens flatter and getting up and down at #3 was not difficult for these guys.    Also, none of the Par 5s present much a risk to these guys in going for the green.   I hate to say it, but I think you need to have water on par 5s to really introduce any sort of reasonably risk / reward continuum.    And, there is a driveable par 4 as well.   The three Par 3s with water (except for 2) have all of the water in the front, and it takes a pretty poor shot for tour caliber players to end up in the water.


It was until the second round that anyone made a double bogey.   You take away double bogeys from these guys and its hard for a course to be difficult enough, especially under soft conditions.   

[Chris Mavros]

While not a thoroughly scientific analysis, this comparison is of interest to me:
Last two BMWs… Winning score at a wet Medinah was -25 for a par 72. Winning score at rain-soaked Aronimink was -21. So fairly similar.

• Medinah = narrow, tree-lined, deep rough, flattish greens
• Aronimink (post restoration) = wide fairways, medium rough, internally contoured greens

Both are super long (7,200+ yds.), but as Adam Scott said, length doesn’t matter to these guys. Width (or lack of it) doesn’t seem to matter either. The only maintenance ideal that matters is firmness, especially in the greens.
My take aways:

• Can’t help that the courses were wet.
• Can’t redesign an existing course to keep pros from going REALLY low.
• Who cares? Medinah and Aronimink are plenty challenging for me and everyone I play with, which is probably representative of 99.9% of all golfers who play these courses regularly especially the memberships.   

+1. 

[Matthew Rose]

I wish those par-threes weren't all so alike. I understand that the lake sorta limits what you can do there, but it might be more interesting if one of them, say played parallel or at more of angle rather than just straight across.

During the telecast they'll flash from 13 to 17 and then back to 13 and they are just too much alike to me.

[John Kirk]

While not a thoroughly scientific analysis, this comparison is of interest to me:
Last two BMWs… Winning score at a wet Medinah was -25 for a par 72. Winning score at rain-soaked Aronimink was -21. So fairly similar.

• Medinah = narrow, tree-lined, deep rough, flattish greens
• Aronimink (post restoration) = wide fairways, medium rough, internally contoured greens

Both are super long (7,200+ yds.), but as Adam Scott said, length doesn’t matter to these guys. Width (or lack of it) doesn’t seem to matter either. The only maintenance ideal that matters is firmness, especially in the greens.
My take aways:

• Can’t help that the courses were wet.
• Can’t redesign an existing course to keep pros from going REALLY low.
• Who cares? Medinah and Aronimink are plenty challenging for me and everyone I play with, which is probably representative of 99.9% of all golfers who play these courses regularly especially the memberships.   

Very sensible response, Wayne.  As a tournament watcher, an old guy who likes to nap in front of the TV on Sunday afternoon, I want a more interesting product, given the PGA Tour's intention on making this important to me.  I thought it was a lackluster show.

My take is to schedule the events in a different area of the country or the world as the Northern Midwest and Northeast are terrible for weather when an event is outside over 4 days for long hours.

Hi William.  I agree completely.  You notice the big cities where these tournaments are held (New York, Chicago, Atlanta).  It feels like they're sacrificing golf quality for major marketing considerations.  The weather in these areas is wet and hot in summertime. 

The condensation of the FedEx playoff schedule this year makes the year-end series feel less important.  I will miss the Boston tournament over Labor Day weekend as part of the series.  Finally, the decision to handicap players with strokes in the final tournament is very foreign to me.  Has this been tried anywhere before in a major professional tournament?  Until I see how it performs this weekend, I don't like it.


The bottom line is that this August in pro golf feels empty after the decision to move the PGA to May.  Maybe it makes more sense to skip August golf altogether, and let the players have a month off during the dog days.  The FedEx tournament appears to be suffering without the PGA Championship beforehand.

[MCirba]

It is sort of humorous that the thought of faster greens is that they are more challenging yet the faster they get the flatter they have to get and they actually get easier for everyone, particularly the touring pros.


Scenes such as Payne Stewart on 18 at Olympic or the 7th at Shinnecock set the stage for what has become the neuterization of classic greens across the United States.  Hell, even the 11th at The Old Course was flattened in the name of "pin positions".    And, even our favorite architects are doing it in a competitive economy where the amount of available work is declining.


If there is no challenge approaching or at or on the greens then there is no longer any fear factor.


Thus, this week's Yawnathon.   And last week.  And the week prior.  Rinse...Repeat.


It's a long time til next year's Masters...

[jeffwarne]

It is sort of humorous that the thought of faster greens is that they are more challenging yet the faster they get the flatter they have to get and they actually get easier for everyone, particularly the touring pros.


Scenes such as Payne Stewart on 18 at Olympic or the 7th at Shinnecock set the stage for what has become the neuterization of classic greens across the United States.  Hell, even the 11th at The Old Course was flattened in the name of "pin positions".    And, even our favorite architects are doing it in a competitive economy where the amount of available work is declining.

I hear it every day when players in my target rich area return from a great set of greens (at courses I know well )and announce to me how the course was "good" but the greens were "slow" and they couldn't get the ball to the hole.
When I ask them if downhill putts were fast, or if when they were were above the the ball was it difficult to stop the ball near the hole, they look at me like I have 3 heads.


I'm always amazed, in a perceived era of "protecting par" that slowing the greens down (which good players hate-see Tiger) is never considered-especially when combined with the other taboo of actually using interesting sloped hole placements.


OT-With respect and apologies to Jon Wiggett, you can rail all you want that greens themselves are stationary objects and are not slow or fast (but rather high or low stimp readings) but that's how 99.99% of the golf world talks and quite frankly is a lot better way to describe them than by referencing "high or low" "stimp" readings which only further would serve to elevate that dastardly device and the dreaded word "stimp"..

[John Kavanaugh]

You golf fans are in for a real treat this week as you watch endless tributes to a man famous for endless tributes. There is one question our generation must always ask ourselves. Why the hell aren't I outside? Our grandchildren will most likely not have such a luxury.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()