The Controversial 16th?

The USGA's Mike Davis has gussied up the par-5 16th and the players aren't wild about it. I sum up the issues and link to some videos so you can judge for yourself in this Golf World Daily item (link works for non-subscribers too).

The ultimate test of this setup change to the hole will be whether the short grass is so extreme that it discourages players from going for the green in two.

Here's what Phil Mickelson said about the change in Tuesday's press conference:

PHIL MICKELSON: So that's a very interesting design because we're so used to the thick, hack-it-out rough around the greens, to see it shaved down on all angles and have the pitch of the grass go right into the pine needles -- I'm okay with pine needles, but it's not really where you want to be. So it really makes you think on that second shot, if you can get there. If it's downwind and you can get there, you really have to think about what kind of shot you want to do because if you miss it long, if you fly it on the green and it goes over, that's a really hard up and down. And par might be difficult. If you miss it right, it just gets accentuated by the shaved grass. So you really have to think about that hole, and I kind of like that. I like the fact that it requires a lot more thought on what you want to do and how you want to play it.

Comments

[GolfFan]

There is less than no architectural interest at Congressional.

They might have as well placed a pond right of the 16th green as what they did.

[Press Agent]

A real golf fan would never make such a silly blanket statement.

[The O]

I've played that hole several times in cluib play. And, I've gone for it in two a couple times, and missed right at least once. If they had this slope saved like it is there , I might have missed left (no picnic), or wedged in.

I'm sorry, but I think I like this idea a lot. Golf Channel had Stewart Cink sort of complaining about the severity of the miss and how you can end up in the pine straw with an obstructed shot. So what? You don't get to just bomb it at a par 5 in two with impunity. There has to be risk. Sure, there can be water, and a ball that is 3 inches short is as just as wet as one that is 40 yards short. Is that what they want? Imagine on Sunday, guy trailing by a shot goes in two, misses, but then hits a great chip and either holes it for eagle or birdies it. How exciting would that be? Let me suggest way more exciting than watching him try to get up and down for par after dunking it in water.

[Aunt Blabbie]

Same for everybody.

[tlavin]

It seems somewhat reminiscent of 14 at Pebble, based on my early observations. It's a "protect par" move, plain and simple, despite what they say. They're trying to force more than half the field to lay up. I don't know that it bothers me, since it is the US Open and it should be hard to win it. Here's hoping it isn't as outright stupid as PB #14 was last year.

[Steve]

Funny how far we've come when if a player can't get to a par-5 in two and may have to lay-up, something is wrong.

Par is just a number. Just list the hole with yardage and tell players...make the best score you can.

[phil the author]

What an amazing complaint that Phil raised, "So it really makes you think on that second shot..."

So I guess the problem with the game today isn't to be found in the ball or the shafts or the clubheads but rather that the game requires thought... What a concept...

[Tighthead]

Phil, interesting that Mickelson says he "kind of likes" the setup and you call it a complaint.

[tlavin]

I, too, didn't think Mickelson was complaining. He isn't afraid to complain about architecture or setup, that's for sure, but what I saw of the presser, he was quite favorably impressed by the course and the setup and he seemed intrigued by the short grass/pine straw situation at 16. I think it's borderline cheesy/unfair, but what do I know? I'm a couch/HD big screen architect and Phil has some gravitas. I will be interested to see what he says about the design of the compartments on the greens as the week develops, because he (and many others) ripped Rees' work at Cog Hill last year. Unfairly, it seemed to me, but he was surely not alone in his derision.

[digsouth]

I do not see where it can be thought that Phil M's comment was a complaint.

[Press Agent]

phil the author / tighthead.

It was Geoff's TAKE on things that painted Phil Mickelson's comments as a complaint. I watched him making comments on the golf channel last night and did NOT take them as complaints at all. It seemed more like he was saying he liked the way it "made you think" and you couldn't just hit away without thinking about what comes next.

Maybe there were whiners around there, Mickelson was not one of them.

[phil the author]

Tight, Terry, Dig & Press...

I agree with all of your comments and did so from the beginning. What was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek remark came across as a tongue-in-throat choke!

There were a number of things in Phil's statements about the course that I found interesting especially with his long-held dislike of Rees Jones work having been highlighted many times in the past. Also, when you consider how he plays the idea of "thinking" on shots is not really one that is associated with Phil with all of the chances that he takes. Mind you, I LOVE that he plays that way; I just think there is more than a bit of irony in these remarks...

[Tighthead]

Phil - sorry for mistaking your cleverness for bluntness, and exposing my cleverness as bluntness.

[phil the author]

Tight,

Nope, it was all my fault for writing when exhausted...

[Longy]

Anyone that's played the 8th at Kooyonga would look at that run off and laugh at its generosity.

[a real golf fan]

There is less than no architectural interest at Congressional.

I've played it.

Even Feinstein on Morning Drive called the second nine boring, repetitive and monotonous.

Yes, Press Agent, this means YOU.

-GolfFan