Originally Posted by iacas
Then you're either ignorant or stupid about this particular topic. Take your pick - I don't care which. Because the conditions are not "poorly maintained."
Really?? I just tell a newbie that we treat other members of this site civily, and the site's founder calls me stupid or ignorant? Seriously? That sort of comment wouldn't be surprising for someone like Shorty who puts every last drop of effort into his attempts at being clever and does not understand the distinction between witty and snide. You need to take a step back and understand that I'm talking about some golf courses, not your wife's looks or her faithfulness. Having a difference of opinion on this subject shouldn't ruffle as many feathers as my comments seem to be doing with some of you British Open fans.
And you're plain wrong, in any event - a green that is partially brown is either not healthy and/or well-maintained, or is deliberately maintained in that fashion as some sort of anachronistic affectation. Some varieties of tall grass that grow in the rough may get brownish at maturity, but the grass that is grown on greens should be green if healthy and watered properly. Period. The part of the course where the hole is located is not called a "brown," it's called a "green." Most of the greens are predominantly green in color, so if some of it is green, it should all be green. From what this layperson can see, it appears that they shaved some of these greens so tight that they damaged the grass; that would be consistent with the multiple player complaints about the extreme speed of the greens.
This morning, there are large bare dirt patches - not brown grass, but bare DIRT patches - on the 2nd green. Anyone trying to contend that is an adequately maintained green is so biased that he doesn't care about being honest.
They also showed a bit of Ernie Els' winning putt from the 2002 championship. The green back then wasn't the mottley combination of green and earthtones that we're seeing this week, it was a solid green. So unless some Muirfield or R&A official said "Let's get rid of this healthy looking turf and put in some type of grass that looks sickly," the grass on the greens is capable of looking like how a green should look, but those in charge of course conditions failed to bring the greens up to that condition this year.
The purists complain about the deliberately over-maintained American course - well aren't the Scottish links courses just as deliberately under-maintained? If anything, the latter sorts of course maintenance is more of a phony affectation, in the 21st century, than the former.
Finally, as to your comments about the meaning of ignorance and my ignorance of the joys of playing a Scottish links course, I disagree. The comments here talking about ignorance are not merely suggesting a lack of knowledge, familiarity or experience, but are intending, at least partially, as critical attacks against my judgment and sensibility. Last time I checked personal familiarity with a sport is hardly a prerequisite for the sport to be considered worthy of merit - my 70 year-old mother-in-law, who knows the names of more Packers players than I do, would certainly disagree. Since I've already stated that I do not enjoy playing links courses here in the U.S., why on earth would that change on the much uglier, browner and more difficult Scottish courses? Do I have the skill, imagination, and confidence to play a Scottish links course "properly?" I have no idea, quite possibly I don't. But I rarely play well on courses that I find ugly or poorly maintained, so I think it would be extremely unlikely that playing any of those courses will change my view of them.