Is the 13th green at The TPC fair or unfair in your opinion?

[henniebogan1966]

I saw/heard an interview with a player who yesterday had a ball roll off the green on 13 and into the water. His contention was that he hit the center of the green. (he didn't; he hit the front edge of the green) and his comment was that when he designs courses he doesn't seek to "screw" (his word) the players like that.  He felt he couldn't have done anything more than he did with respect to the shot selection.

However, this morning on The Morning Drive, Paul Azinger made a comment that everyone nows when you hit the ball where this player did that it will roll into the water.

So educated forum posters, what say you? If you saw this yesterday, did you see it as fair or unfair?

[shades9323]

It is totally fair as every player has to play the same hole. They are professionals and need to deal with it.

[ThominOH]

I know which shot you're talking about.. It was Phil's that hit the green and gently rolled left down the slop, but because of a false front/side it rolled into the water..  It wasn't as if he has so much backspin it was his fault.. I personally HATE false slopes designed to penalize minor errors.. This reminds me of Pete Dye's philosophy that courses should be designed to penalize golfers, ie Whistling Straits..

[NEOHMark]

I think if player hits a green, it should be designed such that the ball won't roll a ridiculous amount of travel due to the slope/speed.  If a player's backspin causes it to shoot sideways or back off the green, that's one thing.  But that's not what happened to Phil.  His ball practically came to rest and, simply due to the slope and speed of the green, gathered momentum down the left side of the green and into the water.  Yes - I think that's an unfair playing condition.  Yes, all the players have to 'deal with it', but it doesn't make it right.  I liken it to a bowling alley that doesn't dress their lanes - it makes it almost impossible for a good bowler to hook the ball consistently with any predictable results.  No PBA pro would put up with it, so why should a PGA pro?

There was another green I thought was ridiculous in that if the player missed over the right crest of the green, it'd roll at least 20 or 30 feet off the right edge down to a waste area that was a good 4 feet lower than the level of the green.  That's gimmicky, IMHO, and not too unlike putt-putt golf, where a lucky shot is often rewarded more so than a skilled shot.

[shades9323]

Originally Posted by NEOHMark

I think if player hits a green, it should be designed such that the ball won't roll a ridiculous amount of travel due to the slope/speed.  If a player's backspin causes it to shoot sideways or back off the green, that's one thing.  But that's not what happened to Phil.  His ball practically came to rest and, simply due to the slope and speed of the green, gathered momentum down the left side of the green and into the water.  Yes - I think that's an unfair playing condition.  Yes, all the players have to 'deal with it', but it doesn't make it right.  I liken it to a bowling alley that doesn't dress their lanes - it makes it almost impossible for a good bowler to hook the ball consistently with any predictable results.  No PBA pro would put up with it, so why should a PGA pro?

There was another green I thought was ridiculous in that if the player missed over the right crest of the green, it'd roll at least 20 or 30 feet off the right edge down to a waste area that was a good 4 feet lower than the level of the green.  That's gimmicky, IMHO, and not too unlike putt-putt golf, where a lucky shot is often rewarded more so than a skilled shot.

How many golf balls went into the water on 13 yesterday?

[NEOHMark]

Originally Posted by shades9323

How many golf balls went into the water on 13 yesterday?

I'm not sure how that enters into what I was saying, but if -if - the implication is Phil's was the only one?  It's not relevant....at least not to what I was saying.

If you hit a shot onto the green, I believe it should be a relatively safe haven for a ball that comes to rest - or very nearly comes to rest - on the green (thereby taking out the momentum shots that roll off the back or the spin shots that shoot off sideways or backwards).  If a designer wants to be 'cute' and make a trickling ball pick up more and more speed from a virtual dead rest and roll 40 or 50 feet purely on the momentum caused by the slope/speed of the green, at least give the player the chance at putting it back up the hill.  I find nothing interesting about watching a ball (at any of these tournaments) start from almost dead rest and end up rolling 35 or 40 feet off the green - either into a false front waste area or (in this case) a hazard.  But that's just me.  The question was asked for an opinion.  That's mine, and the reasoning behind it.

[chaptowngolfteam]

I just can't believe that you can hit the ball at the center part of the green (albeit he came up short) and have the ball roll LEFT, through the fringe, and through the "rough" into the water. If there is indeed a false front or false left side of the green that leads to water, then at least bump up the height of the rough to catch some balls, like at 15 at augusta. Also, seeing this shot means that there couldn't be a front left pin location, to me why would you design a green with an entire quadrant that cannot support a pin placement.

[henniebogan1966]

Originally Posted by NEOHMark

I'm not sure how that enters into what I was saying, but if -if - the implication is Phil's was the only one?  It's not relevant....at least not to what I was saying.

If you hit a shot onto the green, I believe it should be a relatively safe haven for a ball that comes to rest - or very nearly comes to rest - on the green (thereby taking out the momentum shots that roll off the back or the spin shots that shoot off sideways or backwards).  If a designer wants to be 'cute' and make a trickling ball pick up more and more speed from a virtual dead rest and roll 40 or 50 feet purely on the momentum caused by the slope/speed of the green, at least give the player the chance at putting it back up the hill.  I find nothing interesting about watching a ball (at any of these tournaments) start from almost dead rest and end up rolling 35 or 40 feet off the green - either into a false front waste area or (in this case) a hazard.  But that's just me.  The question was asked for an opinion.  That's mine, and the reasoning behind it.

I for one can appreciate your reasoning on this issue. There are times when I think designers or in some cases, The USGA, go too far with their setup of speed of the greens. I think this is something that the players really take issue with even more than the false fronts. False fronts they know about and can play around. But when you combine that with unbelieveable green speed, it's hard at times to refer to that as fair. I've always felt like a player should have 2 options. The risk/reward option and the bailout. If only risk/reward is presented, I think that borders, if not crosses the line of fairness.

[henniebogan1966]

Originally Posted by chaptowngolfteam

I just can't believe that you can hit the ball at the center part of the green (albeit he came up short) and have the ball roll LEFT, through the fringe, and through the "rough" into the water. If there is indeed a false front or false left side of the green that leads to water, then at least bump up the height of the rough to catch some balls, like at 15 at augusta. Also, seeing this shot means that there couldn't be a front left pin location, to me why would you design a green with an entire quadrant that cannot support a pin placement.

This is the same discussion that takes place when we're talking about Pebble Beach #14 green. The argument being there is an entire quadrant that isn't "pinnable." Now in watching the last U.S. Open there last year, it is my belief that theory was proven wrong as I watched players not only hit the ball to the right quadrant (the one in question) but also watched balls hold that green, on Sunday, in that quadrant. So it was playable. Now pinnable might have been a different discussion, but if balls were holding then it was in fact pinnable.

As to 13, the shot in question yesterdy did not reach the center of the green as the player contended. Instead it hit short left front of the green, where that false front is. As Paul Azinger eluded to this morning on the Pre-Game show on TGC, all the players know if you hit it there, it's going in the water. Today, that same player made birdie on 13. What a difference a day can make huh?

[shades9323]

Originally Posted by NEOHMark

I'm not sure how that enters into what I was saying, but if -if - the implication is Phil's was the only one?  It's not relevant....at least not to what I was saying.

If you hit a shot onto the green, I believe it should be a relatively safe haven for a ball that comes to rest - or very nearly comes to rest - on the green (thereby taking out the momentum shots that roll off the back or the spin shots that shoot off sideways or backwards).  If a designer wants to be 'cute' and make a trickling ball pick up more and more speed from a virtual dead rest and roll 40 or 50 feet purely on the momentum caused by the slope/speed of the green, at least give the player the chance at putting it back up the hill.  I find nothing interesting about watching a ball (at any of these tournaments) start from almost dead rest and end up rolling 35 or 40 feet off the green - either into a false front waste area or (in this case) a hazard.  But that's just me.  The question was asked for an opinion.  That's mine, and the reasoning behind it.

It certainly is relevant since that is the hole we are talking about.  If it was unfair, the same thing would be happening to more than just a few players.  Phil hit it in the wrong spot.  He has no one to blame but himself.  How many times has he played this course?  He should have a familiarity with the hole and know where not to hit it.  This is championship golf for crying out loud, not a bunch of hacks like myself out there.

[turtleback]

Quote:

If you hit a shot onto the green, I believe it should be a relatively safe haven for a ball that comes to rest - or very nearly comes to rest - on the green (thereby taking out the momentum shots that roll off the back or the spin shots that shoot off sideways or backwards).

One comment I heard yesterday in talking about this course is that it wasn't designed for amateur golfers - it was specifically designed to test top level pros.  On that basis I have no problem with that design.  The motto is "These guys are good" and I think that means that they should know where not to hit it on the green.  I'm not sure I see the different between this and having places on a green that, with a given pin location, are almost guaranteed 3-putts.  They always say that one of the most important things at Augusta is to miss it in the right places.  So if a player hits the part of the green that feeds down into the water then he didn't miss it in the right place.

[ThominOH]

Originally Posted by shades9323

It certainly is relevant since that is the hole we are talking about.  If it was unfair, the same thing would be happening to more than just a few players.  Phil hit it in the wrong spot.  He has no one to blame but himself.  How many times has he played this course?  He should have a familiarity with the hole and know where not to hit it.  This is championship golf for crying out loud, not a bunch of hacks like myself out there.

Phil hit in a spot that was deemed dead .. probably about 4 square feet.. If Phil would of hit ball 2 feet left in ANY direction from where it actually hit, I don't think it would of went in the water.. His ball was almost at a dead rest and the slope of the green caused it to pick up enough speed to run thru what lil rough that was there.. Augusta has similar issues, however none of theirs brought a hazzard into play.. Even the famous #15 over water the rough was let to grow to keep minimal back up roll from penalizing a player..

[ThominOH]

Originally Posted by turtleback

One comment I heard yesterday in talking about this course is that it wasn't designed for amateur golfers - it was specifically designed to test top level pros.  On that basis I have no problem with that design.  The motto is "These guys are good" and I think that means that they should know where not to hit it on the green.  I'm not sure I see the different between this and having places on a green that, with a given pin location, are almost guaranteed 3-putts.  They always say that one of the most important things at Augusta is to miss it in the right places.  So if a player hits the part of the green that feeds down into the water then he didn't miss it in the right place.

Keep in mind tho.. Big difference is that in Augusta if you miss it on the wrong side of the green, your penalty is a long putt or chip from a collection area.. What happen here was penalty and distance.. As I said in my other post.. Even #15 at Augusta changed their rough in front of the green to stop momentum spin into the hazard..

[Zeph]

Golf is not fair.

If you hit two 100% identical shots, they will turn out the same. A slight change in where you hits the green, landing angle or spin rate can be the difference of holding the green and not holding it. 13th at TPC is no more unfair than any other hole, it just punish you more for not being precise enough with the wedges.

[ThominOH]

Well then in that case, lets add some sand bunkers in the middle of greens or rock waste areas..  And while we are at it, can we add a windmill on 14th too..  There comes a time that course are too tricked out in some areas.. that small part on 13 was one of them.. IMO

[David Sims]

I saw the shot in question and believe Phil was right. It was an unfair thing to have happen. The course should give players options and when someone of Phil's integrity speaks out, those in charge of the event and course set up should take notice.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by ThominOH

Well then in that case, lets add some sand bunkers in the middle of greens or rock waste areas..  And while we are at it, can we add a windmill on 14th too..  There comes a time that course are too tricked out in some areas.. that small part on 13 was one of them.. IMO

Jack Nicklaus won the Players Championship a couple times before it went to Sawgrass. When asked for his review of the new TPC course he said he didn't like the course and mentioned he didn't know how to "stop a 5-iron on the hood of a car."

[JJack]

It's a gimmicky thing to have a green where a ball that is almost at rest travels 50 feet, speeds up until it's faster than an average chip, and dives intothe water.  Not my thing.

I also don't like trees hanging across tee boxes, or trees smack in the middle of fairways.

Having said that, I like the island green on 17 so go figure...