Tuesday
Sep182007
"They're mediocre, lack subtlety and require a one-dimensional aerial game.”
In his weekly golf column, Tod Leonard highlights portions of Bradley Klein's recent Golfweek review of Torrey Pines.
With Torrey Pines South on the clock for the 2008 U.S. Open, the reviews of the course are going to be more discerning, and in some cases, more critical. Golfweek architecture writer Bradley S. Klein fired the first harsh salvo last week with a critique subtitled, “I thought U.S. Open courses were supposed to be special.”
Among Klein's thoughts:
“Torrey Pines has come a long way and is in far better management hands than it ever has been. But all of the changes there for the 2008 U.S. Open cannot mask an underlying truth about the monotonous structure of the golf holes. They're mediocre, lack subtlety and require a one-dimensional aerial game.”
“The USGA formula for Open setups – added length, narrow fairways, deep rough – is anathema to everyday golf. It also makes for boring championship play by reducing the game to one dimension. That's more prevalent at a simple layout like Torrey Pines South that has little fairway contour and no diversity of angles off the tee.”
“For everyday players, it's a slog. And for premier golfers, it's a game with little strategy, because favoring the safe side to those tucked pins still leaves a favorable uphill putt.”
“So why Torrey Pines South for a U.S. Open? No surprise here: It has to do with logistics, since a 36-hole facility is ideal for staging all the infrastructure. And because taking the national championship to a true municipal layout is the right thing to do politically. “But let's not get carried away by mistaking site election here for a branding of quality.”
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 at 07:51 AM
Reader Comments (28)
Truth hurts.
He's right! Skinny fairways, deep hay, long boring holes, thank you Frank Thomas!
When the USGA made the game easier for all they made it too easy for the professional, welcome to pin the tail (pin placement) on the donkey, jackasses!
But how many holes honestly offer so many strategic options? Doesn't the green complex dictate the proper fairway line? Does every hole have a myriad of choices? Does narrowing the fairway from 35 to 20 yards really eliminate _all_ strategic options?
I remember reading about Annika playing a round with Parnevik, and Jesper was debating how he wanted to attack a hole--draws/fades, placement, trajectory, etc. Annika is supposed to have said "can't you just hit it in the fairway and up on the green?"
I see the point about strategy, but I'm not sure it isn't being overstated.
Strategy becomes much more important/necessary at the higher levels of golf.
For most golfers the "strategy" is simply keep it in play off the tee, and hit it on the green.
At the highest levels, just "hitting it on the green" won't cut it. Those players have to put their approach in birdie range or on really difficult holes-- easy 2-putt range in order to excel.
To do that, strategy become important-- which type of shot holds the green better? a fade, a draw, low or high. And which side of the fairway will give me the best chance to attack the hole? And which type of tee shot will put me in that side of the fairway?
86general
Of course, you are right, with today's equipment there is little strategy required by the best players in the world. This is what opened Geoff Ogilvy's eyes when he went out and played RM with wood-woods. Suddenly the mind had to be used to plan shots.
I think what Brad Klein was saying is that every hole and every shot at Torrey Pines will be the same. I don't believe that was true at Southern Hills this year or at the British Open.
But the membership doesn't have any interest in changing just to host a US Open.
There have been rumblings that Butler National might be willing to change its membership policy in order to host a US Open.
To do that, strategy become important-- which type of shot holds the green better? a fade, a draw, low or high. And which side of the fairway will give me the best chance to attack the hole? And which type of tee shot will put me in that side of the fairway?"
As I said, Joe, I understand what they are talking about with course management and strategy. You don't have to be a touring pro to realize this, either. Any 18hcp at my course knows you need a fade on some holes and a draw on others, or you can't hold the canted fairways with your drive. Same is true often for greens, for different reasons, etc.
My question is whether the importance attributed to this part of the game is over emphasized. As Lynn pointed out, today's equipment is designed to hit the ball high and straight, and I am sure this must remove some of the demands of strategy and shotmaking.
Just a quick military analogy. Hitting a fade or draw isn't something I'd call "strategy." In the military vernacular, that would be "tactics." Strategy would be the advance plan for the hole or the entire round...deciding to hit to the right side of the fairway from the tee, or hitting the tee shot a specified distance, to set up a certain tactical move at the next step.
Just look at how Tiger Woods plays. In terms of stategy, he often lays up with irons leaving him longer 2nd shots. When the risk is worth it he'll hit driver. You'll sometimes see him hit driver on a 420 yard par 4, to get a wedge second shot, and then sometimes hit an iron off the tee on a 460 yard hole leaving him a 200 yard approach. Tiger uses strategy on every hole depending on the conditions, his standing in the tournament, the wind etc.
And as for shotmaking, almost every player on every shot is working the ball in some direction.
Yes the new clubs and balls are designed to hit the ball high and straight, but the players are constantly hitting fades and draws, low and high, spinning or "dead hands/no spin" type shots.
In crosswinds, you see them constantly hitting fades and draws to either ride the wind or hold it up against the wind.
Prediction: Tiger Woods wins it by eight after playing a final round 71 in which he hits stingers off every tee on the back nine. Oh well, at least NBC will get a few hours of nice shots of the ocean for us on the international feed.
While I enjoy artistic discussions, the plain facts are:
1) All of the eligible players will still show up. The most outstanding characteristic of an Open is the pressure felt by the leaders, not the golf course. Yes, the vagueries of individual golf courses do play a part, but a five-foot, curving downhiller to win is pretty much the same everywhere on a heart rate monitor.
2) If Tiger is in the hunt, the TV numbers will be as expected and NBC will be happy.
3) The USGA will sell all of its tickets. [DONE]
4) The USGA will sell all available corporate hospitality. [ALMOST DONE]
5) The USGA will sell $13 million to $20 million in logoed merchandise out of the massive tent during the week.
6) The average viewer and average golfer won't notice the alleged shortcomings of the course, if any, unless the general-sports columnists need an easy, early-week storyline and elevate it for the usual lack of imagination.
7) Winning a major at Torrey Pines will be no less marketable ($2 million to $5 million in endorsements) for the winner than any other Open, as long as the winner speaks English.
8) In two years, no one will care.
4p
10) The powers that be that actually control/run Torrey will attain high-ranking positions on various USGA committees.
(Thanks to Mr. Leonard for prior articles on these points).
My question: Is there any thought about changing the current membership policy?
Answer: No and no.
Done.
4p
and pressure, while a big part of the US Open, does not dwarf the course as a factor. the pressure at Oakmont is ratcheted up dramatically by the fact that a small error immediately brings big numbers into play. 4 foot putts can be 3 putted. Only way to create this high wire act at Torrey is to grow the grough up to your ankles
the idea that "regulars" are getting screwed is hogwash. the course got re-done for free, and the "regulars" lost preferential tee times and are getting asked to pay a rate that is a few bucks higher., but still way below market.
what about the guy with his kid who wants to get a time but cant, because the geezers have the tee for hours at a time.
better yet, what about the taxpayers, most of whom dont pay golf, who are not getting a market rate for their course.
It's funny because I chuckled when I heard various golf fans talk about how they couldn't believe they would hold an Open Championship on a "dog track" like Hoylake with brown grass everywhere, what a terrible course! lol
6) The average viewer and average golfer won't notice the alleged shortcomings of the course, if any, unless the general-sports columnists need an easy, early-week storyline and elevate it for the usual lack of imagination."
That's a better way of expressing my sentiments. There's plenty going on at the US Open, plenty of honest to goodness golf drama...The alleged lack of strategic options is a minor issue.
I disagree. The course adds a lot to pressure. I think that Torrey will either
1-be so tricked up that it gets a little silly, a la Carnoustie
2-turn into a putting contest.
The average fan wont notice, but the players and people who understand the game will.
i agree with the criticism that "strategy is overrated". there arent 6 different ways to play a US Open hole, bouncing it off the halfway house, etc. at oakmont it was either be perfect or make 7, except at #12 or #17.
But the US Open has always been about hitting driver accurately, hitting long irons high, and making 6 footers for par. As Important, its about what happens when you dont--instant 6s (or worse) Torrey doesnt have that fear factor, at least not without a lot of tricks.
We have the luxury on this site and others to express the feelings of "true" golf fans, but we can't forget, as 4p has pointed out, that we're in a very, very, very small minority.
Sure, I'm for that.
First--I know nothing about Trump National, other than it costs .75M to join, and I'm not an architecture critic. I'm not endorsing that course or intentionally criticizing any other.
But there is this notion that there is something so special and unique about golf courses designed by Tillinghast, Ross, Mackenzie, et al, that they are the only ones worthy of hosting major championships. I know that's exaggerating a little...there are modern courses that have hosted majors, and the majors aren't exclusively held at classic courses.
But the general notion that there is something specially unique and almost morally superior in, say, a Donald Ross design, is very clearly present and dominant in golf circles.
Even those modern courses which are critically acclaimed are often done so on the basis of how they echo design principles of the classic designers.
I don't know why this has to be the case.
Why can't a modern course, where they moved hectares of soil and maybe even built cheesy waterfalls be a great course, and even a better test of expert golfers than Winged Foot?
I think the notion that the old, classic thing is automatically better than the newfangled modern version should be challenged now and then. I don't know if it's _ever_ challenged in golf.
I like Whitten's implication that Ross, Mackenzie, et al, if alive today, would be availing themselves of all the modern techniques of design, and would be creating courses that looked very much like what the modern designers actually do today. We like to think of these men as artists or even philosophers, but they were businessmen, too, and had a job to do. They did it in the best way they could at the time, and would do the same today.
I play a lot of golf at Bethpage and we are also the beneficiary of EXPONENTIALLY improved course conditions as a result of the US Open being played on the Black.
Rates have gone up a little, but are still very reasonable and definitely "below market"...but keep in mind Bethpage and Torrey are municipal facilities, not high-end daily fee courses.
One great thing I'll say about Bethpage and the State of NY is they get credit for maintaining the integrity of the tee-time system. I'd say 98%+ of the times go to locals and there's no manipulation or hoarding of times by mgmt.
It can be hard to get a time but this is only because the competition for times is fierce, the system is fair. I'm not sure that's the case for Torrey Pines.
ES
Pete L.
...yes, you can.
I think on a weekday like that your chances are quite good but it's not a show up at midnight deal, I'd say showing up sometime between lunch and 4pm is your best bet.
ES