or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Valhalla Not Worthy of a Major Championship
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Valhalla Not Worthy of a Major Championship - Page 3

post #37 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac20 View Post

I don't care how easy the course is for the PGA as long as we have a leaderboard like this one.

 

 

 

Agree. The course may have given up too many low scores, but the drama was incredible. 

post #38 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguirre View Post
 

It's hosted three major stroke play tournaments and yes, two have been fantastic.  Does that mean the course is automatically conducive to "great" tournaments or are we looking at a pretty small sample size?  I think the latter.  There are newer courses that I think fit the bill better for a major championship, including the site of next years PGA.

 

I'm also interested in the television ratings.  I'll bet they are high, but decently below a Tiger-in-contention major.  And now that football season is returning, I'll have to listen to that 60 minutes at whatever o'clock, except on the West Coast announcement I've been hearing for the entirety of my life even more often.

Why do you feel that Valhalla wasn't a great fit for a major championship and Whistling Straights is? I've never been to Whistling. Looks fantastic on TV. Just curious as to your thoughts on why.

 

Looks like TV ratings were up 36% from a year ago for the final round.

post #39 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandallT View Post
 

I agree wit the overall idea that Valhalla doesn't capture the spirit of a major venue. I thought his last line in the video detracted from the argument however- something about how a bunch of European players like Joost Luiten, Weisberger, and Levy represent "mediocrity" and that those players being at the top reflect poorly on the venue. That line of reasoning seems like crap and is rather insulting to those guys. Don't all majors have surprises in the first couple rounds- even some that surprise us all the way to the 72nd hole (Ben Curtis/Jean Vandevelde/Shaun Micheel/etc)?  The rest I agree with though. Valhalla just doesn't have a feel of being a major.

I'm with RandallT on this one. Very poor choice for a comparison and yes it seemed very insulting to those players. I like the course set up, was it playing like a major, no but the course is pretty nice. and the greens got some movement to them. I do agree that maybe the rough could have been longer or something more could have been done but it still was close and on the 18th hole it was still up for grabs. Minus the delay and the rushing play debacle but that has nothing to do with the course.  

post #40 of 59

Funny how the mediocre Europeans were used to crab the course after the first couple of days, and yet the final leaderboard featured

 

Rory McIlroy

Phil Mickelson

Rickie Fowler

Henrik Stenson

 

FWIW though, I didn't particularly warm to the venue, but the argument that the proof positive could be framed by the leaderboard was made to look rather silly be the end of the weekend

 

Give it the Presidents Cup!

 

I also note few people kind of complaining (not sure if that's the right thing to call it?) about St Andrews

 

I think the Old Course is a really difficult one. There are a lot of people who privately admit that technology has got the better of it, and there can be little doubt that if it were invented today, and presented for consideration for inclusion on the Open roster, it wouldn't be anything other than laughed out of town. How many of you really want to lose it though? If they stiffened it up (and they could) what would look like? bunkers all over the place and wild rough 3ft high on fairways 20yds wide. At what point would you be asking for the old character back

 

St Andrews is a really tough one, and its certainly vexed the R&A for years now as to how to react to shifts in paradigms whilst preserving the quintessential quality of the place and integrity of the course. Not easy. Perhaps learning to live with low scoring is the lesser of various evils?

post #41 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarawayFairways View Post

Funny how the mediocre Europeans were used to crab the course after the first couple of days, and yet the final leaderboard featured

Rory McIlroy
Phil Mickelson
Rickie Fowler
Henrik Stenson

FWIW though, I didn't particularly warm to the venue, but the argument that the proof positive could be framed by the leaderboard was made to look rather silly be the end of the weekend

Give it the Presidents Cup!

I also note few people kind of complaining (not sure if that's the right thing to call it?) about St Andrews

I think the Old Course is a really difficult one. There are a lot of people who privately admit that technology has got the better of it, and there can be little doubt that if it were invented today, and presented for consideration for inclusion on the Open roster, it wouldn't be anything other than laughed out of town. How many of you really want to lose it though? If they stiffened it up (and they could) what would look like? bunkers all over the place and wild rough 3ft high on fairways 20yds wide. At what point would you be asking for the old character back

St Andrews is a really tough one, and its certainly vexed the R&A for years now as to how to react to shifts in paradigms whilst preserving the quintessential quality of the place and integrity of the course. Not easy. Perhaps learning to live with low scoring is the lesser of various evils?
I sure hope you're not talking about our beloved Super Joost.
post #42 of 59

Sadly the original article did name him I believe , but not me. I interpreted it to be a reference to McIlroy and Stenson

post #43 of 59
I'm an inconsistent ball striker but I've recorded "rough" distances (more times than not) on the range. There have been times where I've hit the ball about 205 with my 6i but it's very rare.
Carry distance:
D:275-280
3W: 250
5w: 235
4i: 215
5i: 200
6i: 185
7i: 175 - this one I know is 100%. love the 7.
8i: 160
9i: 150
Pw: 135
52*: 120
56*: 100
post #44 of 59
What in the hell... I know I was just in the "how far do you hit it, and don't lie" thread

Failed on this one hahaha
post #45 of 59

10 guys within 4 shots of the lead going into Sunday - does it matter if the leader is at -13 or -3?

 

I'd rather have a setup like Valhalla where it gives guys a chance to go low early in the final round and put the pressure on the leaders rather than guys just dropping like flies.

post #46 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by FarawayFairways View Post
 

Funny how the mediocre Europeans were used to crab the course after the first couple of days, and yet the final leaderboard featured

 

Rory McIlroy

Phil Mickelson

Rickie Fowler

Henrik Stenson

 

FWIW though, I didn't particularly warm to the venue, but the argument that the proof positive could be framed by the leaderboard was made to look rather silly be the end of the weekend

 

Give it the Presidents Cup!

 

I also note few people kind of complaining (not sure if that's the right thing to call it?) about St Andrews

 

I think the Old Course is a really difficult one. There are a lot of people who privately admit that technology has got the better of it, and there can be little doubt that if it were invented today, and presented for consideration for inclusion on the Open roster, it wouldn't be anything other than laughed out of town. How many of you really want to lose it though? If they stiffened it up (and they could) what would look like? bunkers all over the place and wild rough 3ft high on fairways 20yds wide. At what point would you be asking for the old character back

 

St Andrews is a really tough one, and its certainly vexed the R&A for years now as to how to react to shifts in paradigms whilst preserving the quintessential quality of the place and integrity of the course. Not easy. Perhaps learning to live with low scoring is the lesser of various evils?


Golfers in the British Isles are not always concerned about stroke play. They play a lot of match play. Also conditions can be far worse their and these have a great effect on links courses. St. Andrews is not so easy when the wind blows. Climate change has made the conditions for the last few Opens easy. Last, I don't think they care that much about Open scores being extremely low. They get a lot of criticism when they toughen courses too much. Remember Carnoustie when the rough was up? If the wind blows and the rough is high, scores skyrocket.

post #47 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by chriskzoo View Post
 

10 guys within 4 shots of the lead going into Sunday - does it matter if the leader is at -13 or -3?

 

I'd rather have a setup like Valhalla where it gives guys a chance to go low early in the final round and put the pressure on the leaders rather than guys just dropping like flies.


Are we concerned about the setup or the architecture? The PGA doesn't do brutal US Open type setups but the contrived architecture at Valhalla shows it to be a second rate course. The land is not great for golf so Nicklaus had to construct a course rather than let it lay on the existing land. Compare it to Pinehurst #2 or Merion and it's a joke.

post #48 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSchott View Post
 


Are we concerned about the setup or the architecture? The PGA doesn't do brutal US Open type setups but the contrived architecture at Valhalla shows it to be a second rate course. The land is not great for golf so Nicklaus had to construct a course rather than let it lay on the existing land. Compare it to Pinehurst #2 or Merion and it's a joke.

Personally, I think both.  I agree with you on the architecture, but I think they also set this course up too soft.  They don't have to go to USGA lengths, but I like my majors like this:

 

Masters:  Winner around -12

US Open:  Winner around E

British:  Weather determined.  Links courses are dependent on weather.

PGA:  Winner around -8

post #49 of 59

I seem to be in the minority here.  I think Valhalla is a very interesting layout.  I like short strategic par 4s (#13) and split fairways (#6 or #7 and #18...I think).  Nicklaus courses are usually hit or miss for me, but this looks like one I'd enjoy.  Maybe the setup could have been better to make the course a little more difficult, but there were some looong par 4s that forced 200-220yd approaches.  I agree with some other posters that the rain certainly created conditions that allowed for lower (than usual) scoring.

 

But all that aside, I just liked the fact that the event was held at a venue that's not part of the usual 4-6 course rotation.  I may be in the minority here also, but I applaud the PGA for being (slightly) more open minded about course selection.  I'd like to see all the majors played on a greater variety of courses (except the Masters, obviously).  For example, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, Winged Foot, etc. are undoubtably great courses, but I get sick of watching the US Open (PGA and Open Champ) run through the same course rotation.  I guess no one told the them that variety is the spice of life. 

 

*on a side note* I did NOT like the set up of Pinehurst for the US Open.  I live in Charlotte, and played the No. 2 course in May.  It's a great course for sure, but it's been turned into a British style links course with a few elevation changes.  I didn't think it's the style of course (anymore) that should be used in a US Open.  That's just my 2 cents.  But I digress....

 

Now the PGA is going back to Whistling Straits AGAIN next year....wasn't it just there a couple years ago, and a couple years before that?  At least they're coming to Quail Hollow in 2017 (I can walk there :-D).

post #50 of 59
I'm biased because I live here, and was there but I thought it was one of the better tournaments that I have seen.

With 5 players all within reach of winning it for most of the final day it ends up being quite an exciting finish, if rather see that then a blowout by one player.
post #51 of 59

Valhalla produced an exciting tournament compared to the previous two which were over by day 3. It's not a great course, but the PGA is a tournament that sets up like a typical PGA tour event, only slightly more difficult. In that scenario, it did it's job. 

 

On St Andrews, the reason for keeping it purely financial and historical - it will be demolished by the current players, and it will be humiliated. The changes to the course on 11 and 17 will do nothing to alleviate that. And the excuse that St Andrews needs the wind to be more competitive is one that can be applied to every course in the world. Young Amateur's last week were hitting the ball 390 off the tee - that is coming to St Andrews real soon.

post #52 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte the Bear View Post
 

Valhalla produced an exciting tournament compared to the previous two which were over by day 3. It's not a great course, but the PGA is a tournament that sets up like a typical PGA tour event, only slightly more difficult. In that scenario, it did it's job. 

 

On St Andrews, the reason for keeping it purely financial and historical - it will be demolished by the current players, and it will be humiliated. The changes to the course on 11 and 17 will do nothing to alleviate that. And the excuse that St Andrews needs the wind to be more competitive is one that can be applied to every course in the world. Young Amateur's last week were hitting the ball 390 off the tee - that is coming to St Andrews real soon.

 

And it still won't matter. In the end, par is only a quick way to keep tabs on the relative scores during a round -- the winner will still be the golfer who played the course in the fewest strokes over four rounds. If there are 3 players with the same score over the last couple of holes on the Sunday, then that will be just as exciting whether they're on -20 or -2.

post #53 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek02 View Post
 

I seem to be in the minority here.  I think Valhalla is a very interesting layout.  I like short strategic par 4s (#13) and split fairways (#6 or #7 and #18...I think).  Nicklaus courses are usually hit or miss for me, but this looks like one I'd enjoy.  Maybe the setup could have been better to make the course a little more difficult, but there were some looong par 4s that forced 200-220yd approaches.  I agree with some other posters that the rain certainly created conditions that allowed for lower (than usual) scoring.

 

But all that aside, I just liked the fact that the event was held at a venue that's not part of the usual 4-6 course rotation.  I may be in the minority here also, but I applaud the PGA for being (slightly) more open minded about course selection.  I'd like to see all the majors played on a greater variety of courses (except the Masters, obviously).  For example, Pebble Beach, Oakmont, Winged Foot, etc. are undoubtably great courses, but I get sick of watching the US Open (PGA and Open Champ) run through the same course rotation.  I guess no one told the them that variety is the spice of life. 

 

*on a side note* I did NOT like the set up of Pinehurst for the US Open.  I live in Charlotte, and played the No. 2 course in May.  It's a great course for sure, but it's been turned into a British style links course with a few elevation changes.  I didn't think it's the style of course (anymore) that should be used in a US Open.  That's just my 2 cents.  But I digress....

 

Now the PGA is going back to Whistling Straits AGAIN next year....wasn't it just there a couple years ago, and a couple years before that?  At least they're coming to Quail Hollow in 2017 (I can walk there :-D).

Some good points. Thanks.

 

I agree that Valhalla has some interesting holes. The problem is there are many great courses in the US yet the PGA chooses a course that was basically manufactured.

 

Regarding Pinehurst 2, the restoration has returned the course to how it was originally intended. Ross did not build a parkland course in the sandy soil of Pinehurst. He built a strategic course that fit the existing land. You can't tell me that that part of the country is meant to have lush green fairways. The current course is not a links course in any way. There are no sod walled bunkers and few if any cross bunkers. The greens are nothing like those on links courses. If there was one issue at the US Open it's that the greens were too fast and required pinpoint accuracy to hold depending on the pin position.

 

Last, the USGA does not have a rotation other than Pebble Beach. They had not played Merion for decades. There are certain courses they favor (Oakmont, Winged Foot West, Shinnecock, PB) but these are among the best courses in the world and have the infrastructure to hold a major. In the near future they are going to Erin Hills and Chambers Bay, two relatively new public courses and of course Torrey Pines South and Bethpage Black are new to the rotation. Since 2000, only Bethpage, Pinehurst 2, and PB have hosted more than once.

post #54 of 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monte the Bear View Post
 

Valhalla produced an exciting tournament compared to the previous two which were over by day 3. It's not a great course, but the PGA is a tournament that sets up like a typical PGA tour event, only slightly more difficult. In that scenario, it did it's job. 

 

On St Andrews, the reason for keeping it purely financial and historical - it will be demolished by the current players, and it will be humiliated. The changes to the course on 11 and 17 will do nothing to alleviate that. And the excuse that St Andrews needs the wind to be more competitive is one that can be applied to every course in the world. Young Amateur's last week were hitting the ball 390 off the tee - that is coming to St Andrews real soon.


It doesn't matter. The Royal and Ancient doesn't always care about the scoring. They want the best golfer that week to win. And you just can't bomb the ball on a links course. If you do, there's a good chance you will end up in a pot bunker and be screwed. You have to think your way around these courses.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Tour Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Tour Talk › Valhalla Not Worthy of a Major Championship