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

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

Postby lagpressure » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:23 am

nfbandon wrote:Fairways averaged 41 yards, and SH has considerable roll in the fairways so they play considerably tighter than that. The longer holes were wider, of course, but that is always tge case. With all due respect know the facts before commenting based on a preconceived view.


The only fact I saw were three guys in a row hitting the ball onto the green from the rough. Maybe because they have wedge in their hands and not a 4 iron?
I wasn't there, but using a bit of deductive reasoning, I can see the size of the people from an overhead shot, and let's take the 10th hole which is a short hole because Thomas is hitting his second from 104 yards out. The area from were Thomas is hitting not 41 yards wide... more like twice that. More like 80 yards wide. Does it need to be that wide for a short par 4? Mike Davis thinks so. The player positions the ball into an 80 yard wide fairway so he can have 100 yard approach. Not very US Open to me. Sure, you could try to drive it to where it narrows... but why? You can lay up and flip a wedge in? Is that risk and reward situation we should see in a US Open? No.

10b.jpeg
10b.jpeg (52.57 KiB) Viewed 1400 times
10.jpeg
10.jpeg (44.63 KiB) Viewed 1400 times
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

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

Postby lagpressure » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:52 am

12a.jpeg
12a.jpeg (47.71 KiB) Viewed 1390 times


Here is #12. 465 yards... should be a long hole? Nope.. Driver - wedge. Fairway narrow? Nope, must be at least 70 yards wide.

#14, the hole is a par four .... 536 yards. Thomas hits driver - 8 iron. What is US Open about this? The greens severely sloping and fast? Sure. Tee to green, it's a yawn.
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

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

Postby k2baloo » Tue Jun 19, 2018 2:31 pm

I thought the setup was pretty good, best US Open setup in the last few years. They screwed up a few pin positions on Saturday, but overall it was good.

I'm excited for Pebble next year so we can see a traditional venue that hasn't underdone huge changes.
k2baloo
 
Posts: 991
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 5:43 pm

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

Postby nfbandon » Tue Jun 19, 2018 6:30 pm

The widest fairway was 53 yards according to the Fox coverage.

As far that iron...it isn't your typical 2 iron. More like a 3 wood. I haven't hit one but they cost between $400 and $650 depending on the shaft and the maker. This isn't a good thing.
nfbandon
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:03 pm

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

Postby lagpressure » Tue Jun 19, 2018 7:50 pm

I don't believe Fox coverage. That might be a measurement at the narrowest point in the fairway, certainly not the landing areas. You can just look at some of the pictures I posted and how small the people are. Think of them taking 10 steps, then work that across the picture and it's 70 to 80 yards easily.

I'm sure the set up was good relative to the guys shooting 16, 18 under which is just another tour event... and it was never just one guy playing lights out running away from the field by 12 shots.

But whatever the set up was relative to Super Golf, they are still hitting wedge into every par 4.... even one that is 534 yards... driver wedge. I know that is the modern game but how is that testing a player across their required skill sets?

Super Golf does not test the accuracy of the tee shot. Hogan said the drive is the most important shot on a hole. Super Golf says "F YOU" to that idea.

Super Golf takes long irons and most mid irons out of play into par 4's. Why should this skill set be taken out of championship golf? WHY?

Super Golf has obsoleted the design intentions of every great classic track built. The fairway bunkers were not placed where they are to accommodate 300 plus yard drives. Even if you move the tees back it changes the lines and angles of how the hole was meant to be played and it's risk and reward options. How is this good? Why are they doing this? Extreme ignorance or just mindless stupidity? Maybe just intentional disrespect or just arrogant denial? Why is everyone just going along with this?

Super Golf disregards the shapes of the greens to accommodate the variety of intended trajectories, deeper depths for longer iron approaches, narrower and shallow for short holes or risk reward situations for "go for it" second shots on par 5's. All this just tossed out the window... for what? Why? More stupidity? Ignorance? Angry at golf?

Super Golf requires longer courses due to the new clubs and ball, but they insist on playing classic tracks for their biggest events? What is the sanity of this?
Why not just build new 8000 yard courses to accommodate? Why beat up these classic tracks playing them nowhere near how they were intended. Why not just design new courses for the new game?

Super Golf is crowning super athletes that look like football linebackers. The Classic game gave everyone a chance to be a champion. You could be a workout athlete like Gary Player, strong like Jack Nicklaus, tall and thin like George Archer, small and wiry like Ben Hogan, petite like Chi Chi Rodriquez or Corey Pavin, or out of shape like Raymond Floyd, Roger Maltbie and many others. It was a game that could embrace both the long and wild driver like Seve or the short and straight hitter like Tom Kite. Why is it better to have golf moving into a certain body type like a horse jockey or a basketball player? Why is a lack of human diversity better? How could a short driver of the ball who hits it 250 compete against a guy 100 yards further down the fairway?

I could go on, but I won't. At least not until tomorrow..
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

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

Postby lagpressure » Tue Jun 19, 2018 8:14 pm

Which course would require the better driver of a golf ball?

12.jpeg
12.jpeg (45.51 KiB) Viewed 1307 times


11.jpeg
11.jpeg (124.53 KiB) Viewed 1307 times


US Open gets the wide open fairways.
Weekend hackers have to deal with the bowling alley.

Makes sense?
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

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

Postby nfbandon » Wed Jun 20, 2018 4:08 am

No they were talking landing areas, and the article I posted is talking about landing areas. The comparison to a treelined parland course is apples to oranges. Shinnecock is more of a links course. Trees were never part of its defenses. I think it is a great course, and a much harder test than many parkland courses, because of the wind and elevation change.
nfbandon
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:03 pm

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

Postby Ded2Journey » Wed Jun 20, 2018 5:46 am

Change is inevitable I guess...

To me, the USGA doesn't give a flying fudge about the actual game. My belief is that it is all about the room to fit larger crowds inside the course. If you have a bunch of trees in the way, well that equals less space for spectators. More spectators=More cash flow.

It's all about the $$$ folks...it has nothing to do with the game.
"People have always been telling me what I can't do. I guess I have wanted to show them. That's been one of my driving forces all my life." -Ben Hogan
Ded2Journey
 
Posts: 792
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2014 4:54 pm

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

Postby lagpressure » Wed Jun 20, 2018 9:11 am

nfbandon wrote:No they were talking landing areas, and the article I posted is talking about landing areas. The comparison to a treelined parland course is apples to oranges. Shinnecock is more of a links course. Trees were never part of its defenses. I think it is a great course, and a much harder test than many parkland courses, because of the wind and elevation change.


If I were an attorney, I would question the sourcing of that information and how it was gathered. Are they averaging the 10 yard wide walking strip from the tee to the fairway... 200 yards, then averaging that into the 80 yard wide part and coming up with a number that can be passed as modern propaganda to support such an outrageous claim that the fairways averaged 40 yards wide when clearly the evidence shows this not to be true? I object to this information as hearsay and undocumented and request this be removed from evidence without prejudice. :lol:

These are not 40 yard wide fairways.

As far as parkland golf vs links, it's just trees or no trees. I think a course with no trees is going to play easier if the rough is cut the same length. I would rather have an open shot from the rough than have my line also blocked by trees while I am in the rough. More exposure to wind is the only real difference.
A parkland course often plays tougher in the rain because the rough doesn't dry out as fast if the wind picks up. Nothing harder than wet rough and trees.

The fact remains that these guys are hitting wedges from the whispy rough even on 500 plus yard par 4's. Sure, an occasional horrific lie, but way too many balls getting on the green from drives that in any other proper US Open set up would have been penalized much more severely.

The only thing they can do in Super Golf is trick out the greens and around the greens. So the event becomes a classic bomb and gouge event that just puts more emphasis on chipping and putting than usual... due to the extreme green and greenside conditions. So who wins? The best short game player who also drives it over 320. Koepka.

Could Corey Pavin have won this US Open? He did win here before right?
User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

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

Postby lagpressure » Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:54 pm

User avatar
lagpressure
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8174
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 12:50 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Public Forum- Concepts in Advanced Ball Striking

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests