[Tom_Doak]

Excellent piece on golfdigest.com this morning about this phenomenon:


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/us-amateur-2021-new-ways-to-attack-oakmont-alternative-lines-fairways?itm_source=parsely-api

Some players have driven into the 9th fairway off the 1st, into the 1st fairway off the 9th, into the 11th fairway off the 10th, into the 10th fairway off the 11th, and into the 12th fairway off the 14th, in order to attack difficult hole locations.

The GOLF DIGEST piece says, "traditionalists will hate this," but I have no problem with the players figuring out better ways around.  The article is just failing to diagnose the real problem(s):

1.  They let the equipment get so far out of the bag that players are happy to take a longer route on a 500-yard par-4 to get a better angle, and

2.  They brilliantly tightened up these fairway landing areas a few years ago and moved the bunkers tighter into the fairway, screwing up the equation that had worked well for 110 years, so that it made more sense for guys to play to a portion of another fairway that hadn't been so tricked up.

And I suspect the solution in future years will be to "grow more rough" and tighten up the wrong fairway, just in case.  After all, they've just committed to multiple future U.S. Opens at Oakmont, starring all the guys who have been playing this week . . . but hitting into the wrong fairways in a full-field stroke play event with big crowds might be more problematic.

[Kyle Harris]

So they’re taking on a forced carry to set up an easier subsequent shot?


Cool!

[MCirba]

Look for the USGA to recommend temporary, moveable tall white pines be installed along the left side of #9 prior to 2026.   

[mike_malone]

If the design at the green is good it’s no problem to have people go down the other fairway.  I think each time I played Oakmont I played 10 from 11. It just wasn’t intentional!


Think of it as a split fairway.

[Peter Pallotta]

They took all the trees down there long before BDC was openly ignoring the architecture and happily dismissing great design. This new generation of golfers is taking Ross' advice ('there's the golf hole -- play it any way you please') more seriously than ever before; and embracing a whole new concept of 'strategic golf': it's not what the architect created or put there or intended or tried to prescribe, it's what they themselves want to do, moment by moment. It's the ultimate in 'Freedom Golf', even if understood in ways that the old/older generations didn't imagine.

[Thomas Dai]

Are construction type hard hats being issued to all on the course this week? Golf has become a dangerous game and trees ain’t the answer. Time for the USGA and the R&A to pull their collective fingers out and recalibrate equipment, specifically the ball.
Atb

[Rory Connaughton]

WWFD?
What would Fownes do?


Would he simply bunker the alternative landing areas?
It appears that the alternative landing areas are at the beginning of
the alternate fairways and that creating more risk for the alternative lines
would not alter the strategy of those holes. Thinking 3 & 4 for example.


If the greens hadn't been softened by rain would these plays still make sense?

[Kyle Harris]

WWFD?
What would Fownes do?


Would he simply bunker the alternative landing areas?
It appears that the alternative landing areas are at the beginning of
the alternate fairways and that creating more risk for the alternative lines
would not alter the strategy of those holes. Thinking 3 & 4 for example.


If the greens hadn't been softened by rain would these plays still make sense?

I'm prone to believe that a modern day William Fownes would have made Oakmont to be a 10,000 yard brute. Move the target far enough away and there's no point to playing down another fairway.

[Rory Connaughton]

The course seems to be presenting an adequate challenge regardless of the lines chosen
but, Kyle, I suspect that you are right.

[Jeff Schley]

Bring back the trees!   

[Ronald Montesano]

Tom's Quote in the opening post of this thread







https://www.golfdigest.com/story/us-amateur-2021-new-ways-to-attack-oakmont-alternative-lines-fairways?itm_source=parsely-apiSome players have driven into the 9th fairway off the 1st, into the 1st fairway off the 9th, into the 11th fairway off the 10th, into the 10th fairway off the 11th, and into the 12th fairway off the 14th, in order to attack difficult hole locations.The GOLF DIGEST piece says, "traditionalists will hate this," but I have no problem with the players figuring out better ways around.  The article is just failing to diagnose the real problem(s):1.  They let the equipment get so far out of the bag that players are happy to take a longer route on a 500-yard par-4 to get a better angle, and2.  They brilliantly tightened up these fairway landing areas a few years ago and moved the bunkers tighter into the fairway, screwing up the equation that had worked well for 110 years, so that it made more sense for guys to play to a portion of another fairway that hadn't been so tricked up.And I suspect the solution in future years will be to "grow more rough" and tighten up the wrong fairway, just in case.  After all, they've just committed to multiple future U.S. Opens at Oakmont, starring all the guys who have been playing this week . . . but hitting into the wrong fairways in a full-field stroke play event with big crowds might be more problematic.

[Ronald Montesano]

I hear tell of this place called the Old Course, where a variety of avenues exist, from tee to green ...

[MClutterbuck]

So... for a full field event. With galleries. Two rules could prevent this:


1. Rule 5.6a. Unreasonable delay. Waiting for another fairway to clear out is unreasonable to me.

2. If they choose not to wait, Rule 1, serious misconduct for endangering players and or spectators. Eventual disqualification.

Of course, the problem is the distance. Even Oakmont being slowly killed by distance issues. Sad.

[Mike_Trenham]

Being there on Wednesday and Thursday the marshalls seemed caught off guard by this strategy as a few times players had to wait multiple minutes to hit their tee shots as there was minimal gallery awareness nor assistance from the marshalls.


Also agree that many of the alternative landing areas are at the very beginning of fairways so modifications are an option.

[jeffwarne]

When the greens roll at 29 for the 2050 US Open we'll continue to hear that golf doesn't have a distance issue based on the contrived scores that year, where the winner made 52 putts from off the green, where the second cut of rough stimping at a mere 12 created enough friction to present an opportunity to hole out from the short side...the only way to get a ball to stop anywhere near the hole, other than making it.


Wait.... I got my "classic" courses confused. Probably just stimp 24 at Merion in 2050 with the 2042  $800 million renovation rendering a stimp of 29 "impossible"(including USGA constructed fairways, USA constructed rough and USGA constructed native, planted with just the right amount of drainage and construction to drain, be proportional and play "fair")

[Kalen Braley]

So... for a full field event. With galleries. Two rules could prevent this:


1. Rule 5.6a. Unreasonable delay. Waiting for another fairway to clear out is unreasonable to me.

2. If they choose not to wait, Rule 1, serious misconduct for endangering players and or spectators. Eventual disqualification.

Of course, the problem is the distance. Even Oakmont being slowly killed by distance issues. Sad.

Clutterbuck,

They already do these things week in and out on the PGATour... and don't enforce these rules.  Can't imagine the USGA will start doing so.

And every time BDC puts a driver in his hands he's endangering someone, even if himself. 

P.S.  I like Mike's Idea, little white trees, aka OB stakes.  Put a set in between 1 and 9, and another between 10 and 11.  Problem fixed even if not the best solution.

[Dan_Callahan]

At a high school golf tournament at Kittansett last spring, I watched the better players hit their tee shots on 1 down 18 fairway. Anything that bleeds a little right on 1 runs out of fairway and goes into a hazard. Playing down 18 allows you to hit driver. Downside to this is that it took forever for players to get off the first tee because they had to wait until 18 was clear.

[Pete_Pittock]

size

[Colin Sheehan]

When the Ivy Championships were played at Atlantic City Country Club back in April of 2009, there was a fraction of the field who played the 10th hole by hitting down the 9th. It was a head-ache from a pace-of-play point of view, but there's no question the option had merit.


Similarly, there was a time when people played the third hole at Yale by hitting into the fourth fairway so they could see the pin, even if the shot was 30 to 40 longer than a blind shot from the original fairway.

[Tom_Doak]

Sorry the font size was off in my original post.


I am not sure there is a good solution for the next US Open other than internal o.b.

[JohnVDB]

I assume this of you who are for putting in internal OB we’re ok with the R&A doing it at Birkdale a few years ago,

[Tom_Doak]

I assume this of you who are for putting in internal OB we’re ok with the R&A doing it at Birkdale a few years ago,

John:


I don't like internal OB as a solution for anything.  I just think the unintended consequences of the evolution of equipment technology and physical training are starting to pile up, and I don't see how you run a golf tournament with the players firing over the heads of spectators [hopefully] onto other fairways.  If you want to keep the spectators out from between the holes, that's another option, and why this is not as much a problem for The Old Course as it will be for Oakmont.

[JohnVDB]

Tom,


I wasn’t at the 2016 US Open at Oakmont, but I was there for 2007 and a lot of those areas were spectator free then.  For example there were no spectators between 12 and 14.


Also, in 2016 Dustin Johnson hit a drive on 11 that almost ended up in the 10th fairway and got TIO relief for a TV tower, but here weren’t any spectators as I recall.


All that being said, I agree I don’t like internal OB other than in exceptional cases.

[Thomas Dai]

I don't like internal OB as a solution for anything.  I just think the unintended consequences of the evolution of equipment technology and physical training are starting to pile up, and I don't see how you run a golf tournament with the players firing over the heads of spectators [hopefully]

+1
Wish all concerned the best of luck and good fortitude and additionally hope they all have appropriate and fully up to date insurance coverage.
Atb

[Rob Marshall]

Tom,


I wasn’t at the 2016 US Open at Oakmont, but I was there for 2007 and a lot of those areas were spectator free then.  For example there were no spectators between 12 and 14.


Also, in 2016 Dustin Johnson hit a drive on 11 that almost ended up in the 10th fairway and got TIO relief for a TV tower, but here weren’t any spectators as I recall.


All that being said, I agree I don’t like internal OB other than in exceptional cases.

I didn't understand it at Royal Portrush. I sent them an email asking why they had internal OB. I got a nice response just stating that it was always a bit controversial but that it had always been that way. No real reason why.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()