Ryan Palmer On Chambers Bay Green Complexes: "Put a quarter in the machine and go for a ride."
Steve DiMeglio of USA Today talks to Ryan Palmer about his scouting trip to Chambers Bay and he's got some issues with the green complex designs.
In particular, Palmer sees issues with the contours and some of the potential hole locations.
But … "We played it soft. The greens were rolling 9s (on the Stimpmeter). If they get it rolling 10 and 12, it will be interesting," Palmer said of the massive green complexes on the course. The greens feature large mounds, plenty of bumps and are largely unpredictable and will bring luck and plenty of it into play. "Put a quarter in the machine and go for a ride.
" … The green complexes are something else. With some of the pin placements, you will see some guys play it 30 yards left, 30 yards right or 30 yards long, and next thing you know you'll have a 2 footer. Or you'll be 75 feet from the pin. … You have to spend so much time on the greens, practice rounds are going to take eight hours. Every green has like five or six greens on it."
Palmer also provided the first review of the USGA's possible use of less-than-flat areas on tee boxes.
"(Davis') idea of tee boxes on down hills, up hills and side hills is ridiculous. That's not golf. I don't care what anybody says," Palmer said. "It will get a lot of bad press from the players. It is a joke. I don't understand it. I just don't know why they would do it."
Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 05:42 PM
Reader Comments (55)
Look at any number of great championship courses around the world and you will see this in action, a problem presented to the golfer that can be solved multiple ways with differing levels of risk and or difficulty. The classic risk reward short par 4 that is now back in fashion being a good example.
Now that he has blabbed out loud about it, he has probably psyched out half the field. To the bitchy-type golfers, 2 degrees of slope is going to feel like 10 degrees.
I like the looks, but I also liked the look of Whistling Straits, and then when the rules were unevenly applyed (DJ was NOT in a bunker), and then the PGA ruins the finals of last year, by not calling the end from darkness, leaving several players losing unfairly- The PGA has skewed whom the real champion may have been twice in a short time- not to mention the restoring of #2, a good name, wouldn't you say, though those greens at Shi---cock also qualify for a #2 designation-for the and Open then it brings me to wonder with WTF the Open Champ had endured, we will be left with a question that are all the Champions ''the best'' or ''the luckiest in these ''Major'' victories.
Yes everyone played the same courses, but so what? if ''luck ''was already named as a ''major'' part of the setup.
I am not against any of these tracks, or their setups, as much as I am saying the ability to have played similar venue/setups for a few weeks prior may have actually really determined who was the ''best'', and not the ''luckiest''
I agree, the point I was making is that with the demise of penal and uncomfortable choices the actual options are far more player friendly today than it has ever been in the history of golf. Even in the early days the easier option for the Duffers may today be classified as more than just part penal.
As for flat out challenges from the start no, but a good designer maker the golfer think, hence why the simple location of the Pin can make a big difference and that's down to the Green Keeper.
However, if we are going to have hazards. then make them a hazard, stop this nonsense of easy, of hard compacted sand based shallow bunkers that in fairness just extend the fairway and actually may aid the player rather than hinder. Face the trap or go around it - that's the option, both require thought, irrespective of ones skill level.
Today if we hear Golfers protesting we should encourage them to face their fate not go and change our courses because this generation of golfers can't achieve the same levels as past generations. If you moan the question should be why the heck are you playing golf, not dismantle the hazards or the real potential of the course for underachievers or even the apathetic.
That said, non-level tee boxes, while an interesting idea, is stupid. First, you would need to have two, one each way so as to balance lefties and righties. Second, it's too non-traditional to break out in the U.S. Open.
I think we are on the same wavelength for the most part. I too like to see more natural options challenging the player. Picture perfect flat fairways and uniform greens with little contour because they have to stimp at 14 are pretty boring, and I do believe remove some of the skill required to play at the highest level. That said, my thought is the tee box is historically the only place where the player can control his lie, angle of play on the hole, etc... Sure, teeing grounds may not have always been (or always be) perfectly flat, but I do not believe there was ever an intent to purposely create a challenge from the way a tee box lies. Rather, I think the intent was to always give a golfer a "free pass" on the tee, at least in terms of their lie, stance, and angle they want to approach the hole from within the tee markers. If this is not the case why allow any choice in where the ball can be played from other than a fixed point to start each hole? Why allow a tee at all? Why closely mow the area?
I follow and tend to agree but for me the game from the start has to be based on golf not what a player may wish or want to get a change at a good shot. Its the ability to read the ground that has nearly disappeared today, so instead of teaching new players the game we offer them a level playing field as it will help them - but will it - will it help them understand the course, the lay of the land, the rise/fall of the contours and how that may reflect upon their shot let alone game. No you just remove an important learning tool.
If we want golfers we need to give them courses where they can learn to play golf, not pamper them, or allow them to use all forms of aids instead of using or learning natural talents.
Our great courses are now a shadow of their former selves as their hazards have been rendered obsolete thanks to the distance the modern ball travels. They have not been conquered by skill but by a combination of technology and good intentions to modify the harder bits to assist the players achieve acceptable scores - sod the scores lets have a game instead.
The Game of Golf should be based upon the natural, overwatered, over manicured courses have no place in the game as they tend to favour the golfer rather that push him to make real achievements.
Allan Robertson never used Stableford.
Should it be tossed aside as too odern and not as the game was originally meant to be played?
Match play/Stroke play or Stableford its a scoring method - Yes Allan would not have know about it so what - the point is what drives you in golf - is it just the score?
If someone asks you how was your game would you say fine/great/piss poor or would you give him your score, remembering score means little to those outside the game but they can understand 'fine/great/piss poor'.
Its how you play the game, its upon what sort of course, its about letting technology ruin most of our great and small courses, not because of the poor architecture but that the governing body has let the equipment out pace golf courses. Its about their total lack of foresight in seeing when uncontrolled technology would take the game, how it would nearly bankrupt most trying to run a long course if not in design and build cost then in on going maintenance costs.
The equipment has out grown our playing fields - its that basic, its that simple.
In the process of outgrowing our playing fields it has rendered much of these courses next to useless, or weak in hazards and traps. My question is why, why did the R&A not understand golf or golf course design, they were around in the time of Allan.
The result in that courses today are not as good as they once were - that is for golf - but some are picking up and understanding that design is the key and Nature must be allowed to take the lead, she will anyway so we need to look to sustainable courses - yet more like the 19th Century.
The point you seem to be missing and which I try to make is that the 19th Century design process has tried most options, and we are still coping many of the 19th Century Hole designs on our modern courses, even the so call Golden Age guys from the early 20th Century borrowed so much from the 19th Century guys but refused to give them any credit in fact some called it the Dark Ages.
Score is just another of todays weakness among many other things, its the game and more so the courses that matter, not an assisted good low score.
Is that so complicated?
Instead - Davis has given us
Some greens watered, some not (Olympic 12' prime offender)
Fairways of normal width (Every year he has been in charge)
Rough of normal length (Congressional 11' prime offender)
Tee boxes forward one day, tee boxes back the other (Every year)
At least with Rees Jones and David Fay you knew where you stood. With Davis... it's just endless ticky-tack bulls*** disguised as "genius" by a bunch of ardent supports who can't discern between "tough but fair" versus "tough because it's chickens***."
There he goes again trying to be an architect.
Pasa, where do we draw the line for "variation, serendipity"? What is and isn't acceptable and who makes that choice? I just can't understand how throwing a kink into a major championship round of golf somehow flushes out the player who isn't ready for any type of obstacle?