Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby nfbandon » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:55 pm

It was done with computers. Furyk was within 3 of the lead going into Sunday. So it could have been done by a short hitter. He went the other way Sunday even though the course set up was probably the easiest Sunday. He hadn't been there in a while, is in his late 40s and often injured, so it wasn't surprising he faded.
nfbandon
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:03 pm

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby lagpressure » Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:52 pm

SOUTHAMPTON, N.Y. (AP) — I
Jack Nicklaus was the strongest voice of concern a year ago, and it was easy to see why. The U.S. Open went to two modern courses in three years, Chambers Bay in 2015 and Erin Hills in 2017. The landing zones at Erin Hills were nearly wide enough on some holes to fit three fairways from a U.S. Open that Nicklaus grew up playing.

And for those who spent the better part of four decades playing them, it was puzzling.

"I think the USGA has gotten away from their identity with what they're doing," Nicklaus said.
He remembers a U.S. Open with narrow fairways, thick rough and firm, fast green. The ultimate test, he called it.
Nicklaus played two U.S. Opens at Shinnecock Hills, and he might not recognize much beyond the magnificent, century-old views.

The fairways are 15 yards wider on certain holes compared with the previous three Opens on the William Flynn design, allowing slightly errant shots to roll into bunkers that were put there for a reason. And while the course has been lengthened by about 450 yards since the Open was last held at Shinnecock in 2004, the real change when the discussion turns to "bigger" is the greens. They have been restored to their original size.
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby lagpressure » Wed Jun 20, 2018 3:11 pm

Mike Davis, the chief executive of the USGA, likes to think in different terms. The 118th U.S. Open was a stronger effort to stay true to the architecture. In other words, allow the course to play the way the architect intended and remain what the USGA endlessly calls the "ultimate test."


Really Mike Davis? Play as intended? How can it play as intended when the ball is going 70 to 100 yards farther? How can it play as intended if the course has been lengthened 800 yards?


Davis conceded that the identity of the U.S. Open is more closely linked to the historic nature of the course more than how it is set up.


Davis comes clean here. Tie the US Open to the legacy of the course, image etc... not how the course is going to be set up, secondary or non existent.

"Jack played it more as a cookie-cutter setup," Davis said. "What we've tried to do is more respectful to architecture, so we've done that here. In '04, some of these fairways were so narrow that you had fairway bunkers 10 yards out in the rough. That doesn't make sense."


Mike Davis critics Jack's Open experiences as "cookie cutter". Nice stab at Jack. Respectful to the architecture? Play the event with clubs and a ball that have no respect for the architecture? Mike Davis needs to be removed immediately from his position.

When Joe Dey was running the USGA and Richard Tufts was the president,there was a blueprint for the U.S. Open.
"It didn't matter if it was Oakland Hills or Winged Foot," Davis said. "There would be fairways a certain width, thick rough, fast greens."


Mike Davis is so arrogant and disrespectful to the game, the US Open and it's history. They had it right before, to keep a consistency and continuity to the event. They could do this with the set up protocols. I mean who does this narcissist think he is?
Mike Davis once denounced such an idea at Congressional on the eve of the 2011 U.S. Open.
"I think what we've stated over the years is that we want it to be a very difficult challenge,"


For who? For him as a 15 handicapper playing it forward?

"But I'm not sure we've ever used the ultimate challenge. Maybe somebody else has, but I don't believe the USGA has."

And then they did.

Diana Murphy first publicly mentioned it at Oakmont two years ago, and it has become a popular phrase among the blue blazers since then. Jeff Hall, the USGA's managing director of rules and competition, explained the notion of "ultimate test" as shot-making, course management and resolve both physically and mentally.

"Make no mistake about it," Hall said. "The U.S. Open is a grind."


How can it be the ultimate test when they hit wedges into all the par 4s? .... and widen the fairways by over 40%?
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby nfbandon » Wed Jun 20, 2018 6:03 pm

John I share some of your frustration, but you are undermining your argument with your gross exaggerations. They didn't hit wedges into all the par fours. Granted the long hitters didn't hit many long irons, but on holes into the wind they did hit midirons. The greens were brought back to original design. They were big in size, but played very small because of the inverted bowl design. The designer was the great C. B. McDonald. He based the design on the great courses in Scotland. Davis made mistakes at Shinnecock, but it is a great venue and we have great venues for the foreseeable future. The diversion of Chambers and Erin was a stupid mistake. We now have reason for optimism. No the power game is not going away. It is here to stay. But we can still enjoy playing the persimmon game, and look forward to seeing majors played on great American golf courses for the foreseeable future.
nfbandon
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:03 pm

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby lagpressure » Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:42 pm

nfbandon wrote:John I share some of your frustration, but you are undermining your argument with your gross exaggerations. They didn't hit wedges into all the par fours. Granted the long hitters didn't hit many long irons, but on holes into the wind they did hit midirons. The greens were brought back to original design. They were big in size, but played very small because of the inverted bowl design. The designer was the great C. B. McDonald. He based the design on the great courses in Scotland. Davis made mistakes at Shinnecock, but it is a great venue and we have great venues for the foreseeable future. The diversion of Chambers and Erin was a stupid mistake. We now have reason for optimism. No the power game is not going away. It is here to stay. But we can still enjoy playing the persimmon game, and look forward to seeing majors played on great American golf courses for the foreseeable future.


Are you suggesting there was a par 4 out there that no one hit wedge into? I didn't watch much of the event, but did scan some of it and saw several guys hitting wedges and 9 irons into the 534 yard par 4. Not a gross exaggeration at all.

I agree the greens were very difficult, but going that route to toughen up a course is a cop out in my opinion. How about they try a tough set up with average speed greens. They they would have to do something about the 900 pound gorilla on the tee box.

I am sure I will be fine when they officially bifurcate the game. Sure, Super Golf is not going away... but the classic game must come back to some degree of presence. There is no reason for it not to.
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby Wknhacker » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:10 am

I wonder how the R&A will set up Carnoustie for this year's Open Championship?

Troon in 2016 was epic (Phil v Stenson). Let's hope its somewhat as exciting and enjoyable this year.
"I have a tip that can take five strokes off anyone's golf game: it's called an eraser." - Arnold Palmer
User avatar
Wknhacker
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 7:39 am

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby Range Rat » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:17 am

Gorilla-room.jpg
Gorilla-room.jpg (26.04 KiB) Viewed 1246 times


G2 swing weight?
You're ahead of where you were, and behind where you're going.
User avatar
Range Rat
 
Posts: 2354
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:30 am

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby nfbandon » Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:26 am

The classic game is there for us to play, but I don't see it coming back in a competitive format. There are very few voices out there promoting it. Of course, it is promoted here, but the negativity to the modern game is so viscerally negative that no one is coming here. In my view it would be better to promote the game as a whole, and with emphasis on the classic game.
nfbandon
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:03 pm

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby lagpressure » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:10 pm

nfbandon wrote:The classic game is there for us to play, but I don't see it coming back in a competitive format. There are very few voices out there promoting it. Of course, it is promoted here, but the negativity to the modern game is so viscerally negative that no one is coming here. In my view it would be better to promote the game as a whole, and with emphasis on the classic game.


Grady, you have your opinion, and your input here is always appreciated. But I don't agree that nobody comes to this site. It's just not true. It's a very popular and necessary site to have online with an incredible wealth of information about the great Classic Game.
There are plenty of sites that support Super Golf. They are there to support Super Golf players.

This site is a rich and wonderful site that so many have contributed to over the years. I don't see any reason to shut it down tomorrow because I stand in support of the Classic Game.

The game is two games. I don't have time to support another version of golf. If I were writing about ice hockey, that might take up all my time and I would not be able to put energy toward field hockey or other versions.

I have about 10 sets of classic clubs I need to get ABS'ed as we speak and Mike Rees keeps busy in his shop. I have people coming here for lessons constantly who want to learn how to really swing a golf club as the greats did. Swing reviews, Module work, I don't see it going away anytime soon.

I do believe that at some point, an investor will see the opportunity to bring back Classic Golf competition, and when it does, the backlash will begin and the great game will return.

We have the Masters Chairman Fred Ridley talking very firmly about the words of Bobby Jones. I have been in contact with him.
It's not the low road, I agree, but a road worth traveling because the Classic Game needs more people supporting it than it does acting with ambivalence.
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8164
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

Re: Traditional U.S. Open Setup...really?

Postby nfbandon » Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:23 pm

I agree it is a great site with great information, but I don't see much discussion anymore. That is what I miss. I love to talk about golf...my thread over on SITD created over 1 million posts...and there is no outlet for respectful, thoughtful discussion. SITD became argumentative. This site four or five years ago had considerable discussion. Not so much now. I just think more people would come if the site talked more about the positives of classic golf, and less about how bad the current game is. It is kind of like that old guy that starts every sentence with "in my day...." I think that turns away casual traffic. What we want is casual traffic to become interested traffic. Then they might buy a persimmon wood or a classic iron....
nfbandon
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:03 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Public Forum- Concepts in Advanced Ball Striking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Sylwedydd and 2 guests