Turnberry, set up and suitability for the Open.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I think Turnberry is very well suited to the middle-aged, medium length professional player.  Trying to attack pins tucked into the corners of greens is counterproductive.  An old guy can keep up distance-wise without straining himself.  Tom Watson has made more long putts than the other guys so far; let's see if he can keep making a bold run at the hole.

 If it weren't for Watson, I'd find this major a bit less than satisfying.  The course doesn't produce a great deal of exciting play, since playing for the center of the green is so often the best option.

A perceptive post  on another thread slightly edited by me.


The retiring Greenkeeper  pointed out to the Architects and to the R&A that unlike other links courses many of the Turnberry greens gather rather than repel balls. To defend the course the holes have been cut in hard to get at places. Predictably there’s been some whining.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/golf/8157443.stm


Did they make the course tougher for days two and three or did the wind make the difference?

Before this tournament one of the most frequently written stories was that each of its previous Opens have been won by the best golfer in the world at the time. Leaving aside Wood’s meltdown and the sad reason why Mickleson’s unable to play, that theory is now toast. Has modern technology turned Turnberry into a bore?

[Joe Fairey]

Tony,

I was there Friday....other than 18 I didn't see a particularly difficult pin location....the wind, however, was brutal...many guys hitting driver to 6th(231 yds)...blowing hard off the left on 9..sending many into deep rough on right, and 15,16 straight downwind...they had no chance to get the ball near the hole...on the flip side, 17 played extremely easy with a right rear pin, and helping wind direction....may the best player win...

[Matthew Mollica]

I like the set up.

I think that golfers who have driven in the right spot have a good shot at getting close to any flag, if their iron play is sharp.
Many cannot, or are choosing not to hit it close, and instead electing for safety as you say Tony.
The last 2 Opens have shown me that pro players aren't as good in the wind as I thought they may be.

I didn't read much into the stories of Turnberry producing great winners.
It was an easy thing to write. And, there's hardly been 12 Opens there.

The past winners at Carnoustie read as very impressive, for a long while - Armour, Cotton, Hogan, Player, Watson.
Then Paul Lawrie came along. Is he a great? No. Did he play great that week? Yes.

MM

[BCrosby]

Tony -

Interesting question. - "Has modern technology turned Turnberry into a bore?" Or, if Watson weren't making a historic run, how interesting would this Open be? (BTW, I'm pulling for Watson. I played in a couple of college tournaments with him back in the day and so have both a faint personal connection and a strong generational one.)

But back to your question. Seems to me that the highest and best goal of a tournament set up is to encourage the best golfers in the world to take golfing risks. That's what people want to see. That's thrilling.

That hasn't happened much in recent years. That's been the case in the US for a while. Looks like Britain is now infected too. It's a shame. When finding the middle of the green on a regular basis and sinking the odd long birdie putt is enough to stay ahead of the field, something is wrong.

Bob 

[Bill_McBride]

It seems to me that the wind and firmness of the greens explains the conservative play.  On Thursday with nae wind. the scores for the entire field were much lower and they were attacking the pins.  Since the wind came up on Friday, it's been a different game.

Links golf!  Gotta love it, it really brings the good players up the board when the wind blows.

[David_Tepper]

BCrosby -

Jack Nicklaus won most of his 19 majors by "finding the center of the green on a regular basis."

In golf, boring wins!

DT   

[Jim Nugent]

BCrosby -

Jack Nicklaus won most of his 19 majors by "finding the center of the green on a regular basis."

In golf, boring wins!

DT   

That, and ripping apart the par 5's.  Long and boring wins. 

[Niall C]

Tony -

Interesting question. - "Has modern technology turned Turnberry into a bore?" Or, if Watson weren't making a historic run, how interesting would this Open be? (BTW, I'm pulling for Watson. I played in a couple of college tournaments with him back in the day and so have both a faint personal connection and a strong generational one.)

But back to your question. Seems to me that the highest and best goal of a tournament set up is to encourage the best golfers in the world to take golfing risks. That's what people want to see. That's thrilling.

That hasn't happened much in recent years. That's been the case in the US for a while. Looks like Britain is now infected too. It's a shame. When finding the middle of the green on a regular basis and sinking the odd long birdie putt is enough to stay ahead of the field, something is wrong.

Bob 

Bob, where's the risk if there is no punishment for failing to complete the stroke successfully ? Using your judgement to not go for a pin but to play to the left or right of it or whatever because that is the shot that gives you best chance to sink the putt, that to me is good golf.

On the whole I thought the course set up fair was fair. The reason it didn't turn into a birdie fest was that the ball was running and the wind was blowing. Just what you want for the Open. Comparisons to a US Open style set up don't really do it justice IMHO.

Niall

[BCrosby]

"Bob, where's the risk if there is no punishment for failing to complete the stroke successfully ?"

Not sure I follow you. Setting up courses to encourage great players to take risks does not mean that there would be no risks. To the contrary. There would be real and severe punishments for failures to execute. The architectural trick is luring people into taking on serious, scorecard destroying risks. It's not easy to pull off, though ANGC did it for a time.

"Using your judgement to not go for a pin but to play to the left or right of it or whatever because that is the shot that gives you best chance to sink the putt, that to me is good golf."

That's a pretty good working definition of conservative golf. And at Turnberry this year it was smart golf, given the set-up. But that is not the golf I want to pay to see. Especially not from the best players in the world.

Again, but for Watson's historic run, I don't think this year's Open produced terribly thrilling golf.
 

Bob

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

I thought Turnberry is a great open venue. It may well be 2nd or 3rd for me behind TOC and possibly Muirfield. There was nothing booring to me about watching one moment of the Open.

[Michael Whitaker]

I have to agree with Mr. Bernhardt. I found the venue and event very compelling. Watson aside, the display of strategy that each golfer had to undertake on every hole was wonderful to watch. I've visitedTurnberry, but never played the course. I will now definitely make a point to do so on my next visit to Scotland.

[John Foley]

I'll pile on the praises of what I saw at Turnberry.

Since I got the architecture fever, i've paid much more attention to British Open venues than any PGA sites. Turnberry (along w/ Muirfield & RSG) we're the ones I most looked forward to seeing.

The FW bunkers & new tee on 10th I thought we're great.

Was very thrilled at the play and the design.

[Mark Pearce]

It's not a course I have ever ben particularly drawn to.  After the past 4 days, it's high on my list of courses I want to play.  I thought it was a great Open venue.