2012 US Open at Olympic Club Discussion Thread

[sacm3bill]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond  (In another thread, moving it to this thread...)

...Did Webb hit a lot of fairways, greens, putts? Was he #1 in any category? The leader board is what counts. But was it luck, toughness, just good enough? Just enough of no bad mistakes?

Is that it?

We identified the best player who did nothing horrible?

Is that what the Open is about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Pretty sure the US Open is about determining the best golfer by figuring out who shot the lowest score over 4 days. Did Webb not do that, or am I missing your point somehow?

Said that in my post.

But what prompted me to respond is that you also seemed to be implying (and again, I could be missing your point), that the best player did not win last weekend.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

It seemed like good shots were penalized, too. Odd fairways where a good drive went bad, shaved areas off the green to trick things up, etc.  Oh, well, I guess it tests mental toughness and was a survival test, and ultimately, maybe that is what was tested - mental toughness and dealing with bad breaks, really bad breaks, and overcoming tough conditions. I mean, all these guys have great skills, but no one skill seemed to stand out last week.

I disagree that good shots were penalized. There may have been an unlucky bounce here and there just like any other tournament, but players knew where the trouble was and took risks when they brought it into play. For example, Tiger went over the green with his second shot to the par 5 16th on the weekend because he was either too far away to hit an iron high enough to land softly (bad course management), or simply mis-hit the shot (bad execution). I also disagree that no one player or skill stood out. I think the winner stood out by having a strategy and executing it, putting together a string of solid pars and a few birdies on Sunday.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

But is that what one wants from a US Open?

Well, we certainly don't want a Congressional Birdie Fest, but I don't think we want what we saw last week either...

I was fine with what I saw last week - a tough course that required solid play without taking too many chances.  I can see your side of it too, just expressing my side.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

But what prompted me to respond is that you also seemed to be implying (and again, I could be missing your point), that the best player did not win last weekend.

I disagree that good shots were penalized. There may have been an unlucky bounce here and there just like any other tournament, but players knew where the trouble was and took risks when they brought it into play. For example, Tiger went over the green with his second shot to the par 5 16th on the weekend because he was either too far away to hit an iron high enough to land softly (bad course management), or simply mis-hit the shot (bad execution). I also disagree that no one player or skill stood out. I think the winner stood out by having a strategy and executing it, putting together a string of solid pars and a few birdies on Sunday.

I was fine with what I saw last week - a tough course that required solid play without taking too many chances.  I can see your side of it too, just expressing my side.

Well, I'd rather have last week than Congressional.

The best player won under those conditions - he shot the lowest score. I do think it was a survival and mental toughness test - mental = strategy to me. That course would have had me bloodied and beaten after 6 holes from the member's tees. :-)

But we're talking pros.

At the same time, it seemed the course made you take a strategy at times that was a bit too penal. DId not watch Sunday - but Tiger laying way back so a bad bounce would not place him into the rough is an odd set up, making the fairways, in effect, more narrow, or some might say - unplayable - because the odds of it staying in the fairway under the existing conditions were slim and none - and slim left town.

I accept it - my point is, they could have done better without the weirdness.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I've heard something like the [USGA] tries to reward good shots and penalize bad shots to identify the best player that week under difficult conditions...

If you're playing on a course where shots to the center of the green roll off, and you hit a shot to the center of the green, do you get to call that a "good shot"?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by dsc123

If you're playing on a course where shots to the center of the green roll off, and you hit a shot to the center of the green, do you get to call that a "good shot"?

I guess that's my point - Thank you.

You probably should not play it to the center of the green if that is the setup. But should a course be set up that way?

Just making for conversation.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsc123

If you're playing on a course where shots to the center of the green roll off, and you hit a shot to the center of the green, do you get to call that a "good shot"?

I guess that's my point - Thank you.

You probably should not play it to the center of the green if that is the setup. But should a course be set up that way?

Just making for conversation.

Yes, it should be set up that way. Why not have a course that represents the way many courses around the world are set up? Why have the typical dart board golf we see on the PGA Tour week after week? Make these guys use their brains, not just hit full shots to their favourite distances.

[dsc123]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

I guess that's my point - Thank you.

You probably should not play it to the center of the green if that is the setup. But should a course be set up that way?

Just making for conversation.

I think I like that.  I think that's the point of the US Open.

[Shorty]

Originally Posted by dsc123

If you're playing on a course where shots to the center of the green roll off, and you hit a shot to the center of the green, do you get to call that a "good shot"?

Certainly not. It is  a bad shot.

Most pros tend to break greens up tinto (at least) quadrants and they know that they need to be in a certain quadrant. They know that 2 or three of the others leave them dead.

Tiger's second shot on 17 Saturday (or whenever it was) would have been amazing at 99% of courses. Unfortunately, it was not a good shot for that green in those conditions.

He hit the ball perfectly, but landed it in the wrong spot. Not a good shot.

This all goes back to the bunker in the middle of the green thread or tree in the middle of the fairway threads.

Sure, you made great contact and hit the ball perfectly. Still a poor shot.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Yes, it should be set up that way. Why not have a course that represents the way many courses around the world are set up? Why have the typical dart board golf we see on the PGA Tour week after week? Make these guys use their brains, not just hit full shots to their favourite distances.

Well, we are talking about the CENTER of the green.

Is nothing sacred?

:-)

I can see if it's on the left or right, back or front, but center? And some of these approach shots were not with PW or SW. "Okay, you need to put that 2i from 265  on the right side of the green because if you hit center, it will run down into a shaved area and then into a group of trees 15 feet below the green..."

:-)

Sorry - my tendency is to question authority, not be a yup monkey for it.

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Yes, it should be set up that way. Why not have a course that represents the way many courses around the world are set up? Why have the typical dart board golf we see on the PGA Tour week after week? Make these guys use their brains, not just hit full shots to their favourite distances.

Well, we are talking about the CENTER of the green.

Is nothing sacred?

:-)

I can see if it's on the left or right, back or front, but center? And some of these approach shots were not with PW or SW. "Okay, you need to put that 2i from 265  on the right side of the green because if you hit center, it will run down into a shaved area and then into a group of trees 15 feet below the green..."

:-)

Sorry - my tendency is to question authority, not be a yup monkey for it.

I'm not sure if you're saying a player should be able to hit a ball from 265 out to the centre of the green and stop it on the green or if you're saying a player should not be left with a 265 yard approach to a green that will not hold a 265 yard approach shot.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I'm not sure if you're saying a player should be able to hit a ball from 265 out to the centre of the green and stop it on the green or if you're saying a player should not be left with a 265 yard approach to a green that will not hold a 265 yard approach shot.

In general, I don't think a player should not be left with an option of a 265 yd shot that he hits high and lands nicely, hitting the center of the green, and that it should roll off. That's a bit too exacting. Trying to remember Tiger from his old days - didn't he hit a 200 yd bunker shot in the dark to 3-4 feet? What if he hit that and it didn't hold the green. lol.

What some people seem to be saying - is anything the USGA does is fair.

Don't agree.

Where is the line?

Some apparently think there is no line.

That's okay. I won't be playing that course. :-)

[sean_miller]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Quote:

Originally Posted by sean_miller

I'm not sure if you're saying a player should be able to hit a ball from 265 out to the centre of the green and stop it on the green or if you're saying a player should not be left with a 265 yard approach to a green that will not hold a 265 yard approach shot.

In general, I don't think a player should not be left with an option of a 265 yd shot that he hits high and lands nicely, hitting the center of the green, and that it should roll off. That's a bit too exacting. Trying to remember Tiger from his old days - didn't he hit a 200 yd bunker shot in the dark to 3-4 feet? What if he hit that and it didn't hold the green. lol.

What some people seem to be saying - is anything the USGA does is fair.

Don't agree.

Where is the line?

Some apparently think there is no line.

That's okay. I won't be playing that course. :-)

Was that on a par 4 or a par 5 (the 265 yard shot that didn't hold the green)? If other players knew enough to land it just short of barely on at best, then why didn't Tiger know that, assuming it's a shot of Tiger's you're talking about. To me this sounds like a setup that favours nobody in particular and rewards everybody who hits the shot that's required at the time. Sounds more than fair to me.

And why would you care about a 265 approach anyway?

[k-troop]

I think what Mr. D is saying is this.  The course requires you to hit a short club off of the tee, because a driver or 3-wood leaves you less than a 1/3 chance of hitting the fairway, even with a very well executed shot.  Because of this course condition, a "smart" tee shot still leaves you with a very long shot to the green, say 220+ yards.  Except that the greens simply will not hold a typical 220-yard shot (medium traj 4-iron, let's say) that a pro would hit, because the combination of elevation, size, and firmness of the greens.

So you're stuck with a Hobson's choice:  impossible tee shot, impossible second shot, or simply accepting on the tee that you're going to take 3 shots to reach a par-4.

I agree that a course set up in this way would be ridiculous.  However, I don't think Olympic was set up nearly that hard.  Plenty of guys were hitting plenty of fairways and greens.  There may have been a couple 4-pars where the only truly safe strategy was to plan for 3 shots--but that was more than offset by a reachable par-5, a reachable par-4, a wedge par-3, and a couple more par-4s that where you could hit a good 3-wood inside 150 yards.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by sean_miller

Was that on a par 4 or a par 5 (the 265 yard shot that didn't hold the green)? If other players knew enough to land it just short of barely on at best, then why didn't Tiger know that, assuming it's a shot of Tiger's you're talking about. To me this sounds like a setup that favours nobody in particular and rewards everybody who hits the shot that's required at the time. Sounds more than fair to me.

And why would you care about a 265 approach anyway?

Why should a course be set up that way?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by k-troop

I think what Mr. D is saying is this.  The course requires you to hit a short club off of the tee, because a driver or 3-wood leaves you less than a 1/3 chance of hitting the fairway, even with a very well executed shot.  Because of this course condition, a "smart" tee shot still leaves you with a very long shot to the green, say 220+ yards.  Except that the greens simply will not hold a typical 220-yard shot (medium traj 4-iron, let's say) that a pro would hit, because the combination of elevation, size, and firmness of the greens.

So you're stuck with a Hobson's choice:  impossible tee shot, impossible second shot, or simply accepting on the tee that you're going to take 3 shots to reach a par-4.

I agree that a course set up in this way would be ridiculous.  However, I don't think Olympic was set up nearly that hard.  Plenty of guys were hitting plenty of fairways and greens.  There may have been a couple 4-pars where the only truly safe strategy was to plan for 3 shots--but that was more than offset by a reachable par-5, a reachable par-4, a wedge par-3, and a couple more par-4s that where you could hit a good 3-wood inside 150 yards.

Agree.

But why should some par 5's make up for some par 4's. Shouldn't a hole stand on its own?

Just saying.

We can do this all day long. Just trying to encourage questioning.  I think the USGA was embarrassed by Congressional, and if not overtly, they decided to get even with the Olympic setup, which was not bad, but they could have done better. I think they erred on the side of toughness. That's okay - I just hadn't seen a leader board jump like that in a long time. That says something.

[k-troop]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Agree.

But why should some par 5's make up for some par 4's. Shouldn't a hole stand on its own?

Just saying.

We can do this all day long. Just trying to encourage questioning.  I think the USGA was embarrassed by Congressional, and if not overtly, they decided to get even with the Olympic setup, which was not bad, but they could have done better. I think they erred on the side of toughness. That's okay - I just hadn't seen a leader board jump like that in a long time. That says something.

Yeah, the hole can be ridiculous by itself.  But, when evaluating the hole individually, a 4-par that is "designed" as a 3-shot hole can be intended to test a golfer's scrambling.  And, when evaluating the course as a whole, the 3-shot par-4 can be offset by a short par-5 or driveable par-4 that measures your balls.

And I don't think this was revenge for Congressional.  The US Open is always hard.  Congressional was an aberration.  None of the pros this year had specific complaints about a particular hole or shot being unfair, which is an aberration in itself for the US Open.

[newtogolf]

The way 17 was set up that day the design was penal for moderate long hitters.   Tiger was penalized for trying to go for the green in 2 when instead he needed to lay up short and hit a wedge with spin to prevent it rolling off the back of the green and into the valley.  If the goal is to keep scores high artifically then they achieved it, a winning score of a +1 means the course designers won this batte.

Originally Posted by Shorty

Certainly not. It is  a bad shot.

Most pros tend to break greens up tinto (at least) quadrants and they know that they need to be in a certain quadrant. They know that 2 or three of the others leave them dead.

Tiger's second shot on 17 Saturday (or whenever it was) would have been amazing at 99% of courses. Unfortunately, it was not a good shot for that green in those conditions.

He hit the ball perfectly, but landed it in the wrong spot. Not a good shot.

This all goes back to the bunker in the middle of the green thread or tree in the middle of the fairway threads.

Sure, you made great contact and hit the ball perfectly. Still a poor shot.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

The way 17 was set up that day the design was penal for moderate long hitters.   Tiger was penalized for trying to go for the green in 2 when instead he needed to lay up short and hit a wedge with spin to prevent it rolling off the back of the green and into the valley.  If the goal is to keep scores high artifically then they achieved it, a winning score of a +1 means the course designers won this batte.

Yeah, 17 isn't a good example of somebody having to hit a specific quadrant of a green.  Tiger landed it at least a few yards short of the green (the announcing crew said "8") and it went 30 yards past the back of the green.  And it's not like Tiger can't land a ball softly from relatively long distances (he was hitting a 4 iron).