Target vs. Links vs. US Open

[CraiginKSA]

So the "Players is/isn't a major" thread developed into a good discussion about the history of majors and when/if the Players will ever acheive that lofty status.  But one observation (by our host iacas) was very interesting to me. The observation that target golf is boring!  And that Sawgrass is gimmicky an not a major caliber track.

Predictably, several sycophants errrrrrrrrrr additional posters chimed in and agreed that Sawgrass is not worthy.  Well, what exactly does that mean - "gimmicky?"  The Open Championship is my second favorite tournament.  But you wanna talk about gimmicky!  You have to bounce your ball over and around mounds and bunkers that up until the 1800's, sheep used to use for shelter against the wind and rain.  Bad bounces are an integral part of the Open (just ask T. Watson).  IOW luck plays a small, but important part in the outcome!  And as my Scottish forefathers used to say, "if it's nae wind and nae rain, it's nae golf.  Swirling wind and rain is also an integral part of the Open.  So working your ball against the elements good, avoiding the water and railroad ties bad.  Fine, each to his own.

Now for THE ultimate test of target golf, I give you the US OPEN!  Those courses are set up so that if you miss the fairway by as much as 1 yard, you're hacking it out of ankle high rough.  The greens are set up so there is an area to land your ball about the size of a man-hole cover.  Any miss and you roll off the green.  They push the tees back so the courses play 7400 yards, but are par 70.  So tricking up the course in this way is fine, but building an artificial island - not so much.  In fact that is exactly the complaint every year by numerous pros - that the USGA tricks up these courses so much that even par wins it.  Tricked up > gimmicky.

Just sayin'.  Potato, Potahto, tomato, tomahto(e).

One more thing, which hole do you like more - #12 at Augusta, or #17 at Sawgrass?

[Abu3baid]

So the "Players is/isn't a major" thread developed into a good discussion about the history of majors and when/if the Players will ever acheive that lofty status.  But one observation (by our host iacas) was very interesting to me. The observation that target golf is boring!  And that Sawgrass is gimmicky an not a major caliber track. Predictably, several sycophants errrrrrrrrrr additional posters chimed in and agreed that Sawgrass is not worthy.  Well, what exactly does that mean - "gimmicky?"  The Open Championship is my second favorite tournament.  But you wanna talk about gimmicky!  You have to bounce your ball over and around mounds and bunkers that up until the 1800's, sheep used to use for shelter against the wind and rain.  Bad bounces are an integral part of the Open (just ask T. Watson).  IOW luck plays a small, but important part in the outcome!  And as my Scottish forefathers used to say, "if it's nae wind and nae rain, it's nae golf.  Swirling wind and rain is also an integral part of the Open.  So working your ball against the elements good, avoiding the water and railroad ties bad.  Fine, each to his own. Now for THE ultimate test of target golf, I give you the US OPEN!  Those courses are set up so that if you miss the fairway by as much as 1 yard, you're hacking it out of ankle high rough.  The greens are set up so there is an area to land your ball about the size of a man-hole cover.  Any miss and you roll off the green.  They push the tees back so the courses play 7400 yards, but are par 70.  So tricking up the course in this way is fine, but building an artificial island - not so much.  In fact that is exactly the complaint every year by numerous pros - that the USGA tricks up these courses so much that even par wins it.  Tricked up > gimmicky. Just sayin'.  Potato, Potahto, tomato, tomahto(e). One more thing, which hole do you like more - #12 at Augusta, or #17 at Sawgrass?

I saw the post you are eluding to, and my first thought was actually what is the opposite of "Target Golf" so that I could mentally visualize what he considered to be "non-boring" golf.. I thought all golf was "Target Golf", but as long as definitions differ it wouldn't be something I would delve into since it would just be a back and fourth anyway.. I am interested however in seeing the different responses to your post, especially in defining "Gimikey" and reconciling between the different courses and set ups you mentioned! Good Post.

[CraiginKSA]

Hi Eyad!!  Are you sticking around for Ramadan?

I think Jack once said that there is tournament golf, and then there is major championship golf.  The two are not the same.  The Players and Sawgrass is absolutely Target golf.  But is it major championship golf?

[Abu3baid]

Hi Eyad!!  Are you sticking around for Ramadan?

Yes, I'll be back from the States right at the start of Ramadan..

I think Jack once said that there is tournament golf, and then there is major championship golf.  The two are not the same.  The Players and Sawgrass is absolutely Target golf.  But is it major championship golf?

I have no idea, I'm not grounded in the definition of the terms above in bold.. they seem pretty subjective to me at the moment (Target Golf might not be, but I still don't know what it means)..  It seems like "Majors" because that way over time, and the criteria for it seems subjective.. Because of the different entities in golf I'm assuming each wants to have their tourney be the most important one, so it is advertised and eventually a grass root movement forms until players start seeing it as such..

Are there objective measuring sticks that I can use to measure how each of the four majors currently conform to them which don't exist in other tournaments, like the players ect?

[saevel25]

The Open Championship is my second favorite tournament.  But you wanna talk about gimmicky!  You have to bounce your ball over and around mounds and bunkers that up until the 1800's, sheep used to use for shelter against the wind and rain.  Bad bounces are an integral part of the Open (just ask T. Watson).  IOW luck plays a small, but important part in the outcome!  And as my Scottish forefathers used to say, "if it's nae wind and nae rain, it's nae golf.  Swirling wind and rain is also an integral part of the Open.  So working your ball against the elements good, avoiding the water and railroad ties bad.  Fine, each to his own.

In the end all golf is technically target golf, but Dye's courses and TPC Sawgrass make it a gimmick. I've played the course, I like the course, I do not think the course is Major worthy.

For me the links courses are not gimmicky because you can play the courses multiple ways. You can't do that at TPC because of how it is structured. There is a reason why short hitters rule at TPC because it takes driver out of play.

I've played the course from the blue tees (6661 yards). I could hit hybrid all day, not bring anything into play and shoot well on that course. There is no imagination needed to play Sawgrass. It doesn't have any give to play it but play short of all hazards. There isn't any risk/reward golf holes on that course.

Now for THE ultimate test of target golf, I give you the US OPEN!  Those courses are set up so that if you miss the fairway by as much as 1 yard, you're hacking it out of ankle high rough.  The greens are set up so there is an area to land your ball about the size of a man-hole cover.  Any miss and you roll off the green.  They push the tees back so the courses play 7400 yards, but are par 70.  So tricking up the course in this way is fine, but building an artificial island - not so much.  In fact that is exactly the complaint every year by numerous pros - that the USGA tricks up these courses so much that even par wins it.  Tricked up > gimmicky.

The rough can get a bit over board in US Opens. The idea that you need to land the ball on the size of a man-hole is absurd, except for that one hole at Pinerhurst last year, but Donald Ross is a diabolic genius designing greens. Still, not all misses and the ball rolls off the green.

Its not called tricked up, its called pushing the course to the limit so it can push the players to the limit. It's been that way for years. If players want to complain then don't enter the US Open. Sawgrass forces all players to play the course the same way. Basically Sawgrass tries to fit a lot of circle pegs into a square hole.

One more thing, which hole do you like more - #12 at Augusta, or #17 at Sawgrass?

I would take #12 at Augusta. More visually impressive. Interesting #12 plays just as hard as #17 this year. Both played 0.09 strokes over par.

[iacas]

The U.S. Open is not "target golf" the way the words "target golf" are used. The British Open is "target golf" too - you still have to get your ball in the hole (a target) and avoid the heather and bunkers and stuff (leaving you with… targets that aren't in the heather or bunkers).

Yes, at the end of the day all golf is "target golf" but that's not what people mean when they say "target golf." Non-target golf presents multiple targets, while "target golf" presents only one realistic option. Non-target golf has a finer gradient in the risk/reward balance than "target golf."

It's a subtle but important distinction.

P.S. You're wrong about the U.S. Open and hacking it out if you miss the fairway by a yard. Have you watched one the last decade or so?

[dbuck]

I think the USGA has done a decent job the last several years with the  US Open setup. Regardless of what they say, I do believe that in 1974 and a couple of years after, they were excessively punitive, and also regradless of what they say, some of it was reaction to Miller's 63 in 1973. The past several years however have been quite fair.

I don't have a problem with lengthing holes nor with changing par. I don't think they are protecting par, I think they are defining it, or making the definition meaningful. I have heard par defined as what an expert golfer should make on the hole. They are not setting it up to test 15 handicappers like me, they are setting it up to test the likes of Rory and Phil. These guys are good as they say, and they should be able to score par with their best effort. They often do and better.

[turtleback]

So the "Players is/isn't a major" thread developed into a good discussion about the history of majors and when/if the Players will ever acheive that lofty status.  But one observation (by our host iacas) was very interesting to me. The observation that target golf is boring!  And that Sawgrass is gimmicky an not a major caliber track.

Predictably, several sycophants errrrrrrrrrr additional posters chimed in and agreed that Sawgrass is not worthy.

. . .

One more thing, which hole do you like more - #12 at Augusta, or #17 at Sawgrass?

That bold part was pretty crappy, IMO.  Is everyone who agrees with you a sycophant?  Do you really think it is good strategy to start off an argument with unfairly characterizing those you disagree with?

And re-defining Target Golf to mean something that no one means when they use the term doesn't help you case at all.

As to your final question, unquestionably the 12th.  It is the difference between a beautiful women, impeccably dressed and made up with subtlety, and a surgically altered, tarted up hooker on the corner.

[disco111]

Question: Looking at Pinehurst, when the open was held there. With their, as some call them, turtle back greens, would you categorize that as target golf?

[Natural Patrick]

#17 at Sawgrass

[saevel25]

Question: Looking at Pinehurst, when the open was held there. With their, as some call them, turtle back greens, would you categorize that as target golf?

Not target golf.

[CraiginKSA]

That bold part was pretty crappy, IMO.  Is everyone who agrees with you a sycophant?  Do you really think it is good strategy to start off an argument with unfairly characterizing those you disagree with?

And re-defining Target Golf to mean something that no one means when they use the term doesn't help you case at all.

As to your final question, unquestionably the 12th.  It is the difference between a beautiful women, impeccably dressed and made up with subtlety, and a surgically altered, tarted up hooker on the corner.

That was a troll move that if i had to do over i'd edit out.  But all the +1, Agreed, ^This etc. in rapid succession is irritating to me.  Next time.

#12 is a great hole.  #17 is a dramatic hole that has many times decided the tournament, so not really just a skank on the corner.

The U.S. Open is not "target golf" the way the words "target golf" are used. The British Open is "target golf" too - you still have to get your ball in the hole (a target) and avoid the heather and bunkers and stuff (leaving you with… targets that aren't in the heather or bunkers).

Yes, at the end of the day all golf is "target golf" but that's not what people mean when they say "target golf." Non-target golf presents multiple targets, while "target golf" presents only one realistic option. Non-target golf has a finer gradient in the risk/reward balance than "target golf."

It's a subtle but important distinction.

P.S. You're wrong about the U.S. Open and hacking it out if you miss the fairway by a yard. Have you watched one the last decade or so?

OK, the distinction I get now.  Although it seems that US Open greens only give one option and if you miss, then it'll end badly.  Also, I was talking about the entire 115 years of the tournament, not the just the last 10.  According to Architect Bill Coore, who redesigned Pinehurst along with Ben Crenshaw for last year's Open, “This is going to be the first U.S. Open played without a maintained rough.”

[iacas]

That was a troll move that if i had to do over i'd edit out.  But all the +1, Agreed, ^This etc. in rapid succession is irritating to me.  Next time.

That didn't happen. This forum has a culture of not just posting stupid "+1 Agreed" type comments. I've discouraged it from the start. Occasionally, and particularly on less serious topics, you get that kind of post, but rarely.

It's unfair to label people who agree with a stated position a sycophant.

#12 is a great hole.  #17 is a dramatic hole that has many times decided the tournament, so not really just a skank on the corner.

You are welcome to your opinion, as others are welcome to theirs.

OK, the distinction I get now.  Although it seems that U.S. Open greens only give one option and if you miss, then it'll end badly.

That's true of virtually every green about as often as it's true of the U.S. Open. GIR is King, after all… missing the green is bad. And yet, we find the USGA more open to playing with course setup to change these types of things. Last year's U.S. Open didn't even have rough, and I don't think this year's will either. Perhaps your perceptions are due for an update.

Odd that you'd use this example given the 17th… miss the green there and, what, you're far more likely to have it "end badly" than at virtually any U.S. Open (or any other course anywhere). Not a lot of island greens out there. Island greens offer no chance of recovery, while longer rough still allows you to chip in.

Also, I was talking about the entire 115 years of the tournament, not the just the last 10.  According to Architect Bill Coore, who redesigned Pinehurst along with Ben Crenshaw for last year's Open, “This is going to be the first U.S. Open played without a maintained rough.”

TPC Sawgrass had more rough. So I'm a bit lost as to how you think this makes your point. The USGA is playing back-to-back years on courses with no rough, and lots of risk/reward type stuff, while TPC Sawgrass continues to have rough, pure target golf tee to green, and an island green that offers NO recovery if you miss.