US Open setup, I don't like it

[Rife4Life]

JasonZ how did bomb n gauge go out with the rule change...most of the better players have been using v grooves in their irons for years just had to change their wedges...davis love has the grooves on his irons dulled down because even with them he gets too much spin...now u can say it may have changed the type of balls people are using to ones that are slightly softer...but any pro out there can still spin the new wedges back n hit the ball a mile...they just arent gona spin it back off the green out of the rough..not a major change IMO opinion but I do like the change..I liked this open and missed watching players hit long irons n trying to hold small green from 220+...because lets admit it even we can reach the greens and hold them from under that distance with the technology of today, its nice to see once in a while the skill that seperate these men from us amateurs who play only for enjoyment...I wish more tournaments had a similar setup and the winning scores were closer to par than -20...just the type of golf I grew to like when I was young tho, learning from watching my pap who used to tell me stories of his winning rounds back in the 30,40, and 50's with scores just a few under par...I do enjoy all the golf tournaments tho, different setups are nice to see when the norm has changed from what it used to be before all this crazy technology haha

[phil75070]

I think it is one thing to narrow the fairways and let the rough grow to emphasize accuracy, but the way the USGA sets up courses they are artificially contrived and set up in ways that the course designers never meant them to be played. I like the R&A approach to The Open. The course is what it is. Lost of rain and the rough is thicker and the course will play softer. No rain leading up to The Open and the course will play hard and fast. Nature dictates how the course is to play, not some god-like official deciding this is how it should be.

[Davidb27]

I played Pebble in March of this year with the fairways already cut for the tourney and the greens running faster than the At&t as our two caddies stated. It still was not a real difficult course from the blue tees, mainly cause we had incredible weather that day.

But I could tell right away on Thursday that this was a totally different course with the fairways and greens cut down to nothing and playing super fast. With all the talk about 14, I thought the most ridiculous hole was 17. That pin in the back is just stupid cause you don't realize how small an area that is until you see it. 14 was bad, but come on, it's a par 5 and unless you screw up your first two shots, a pro should be able to make par there somehow. What's wrong with being in the bunker? Tiger sure made it look easy. Or laying up and chipping 25 feet to the right?

Memo to the guys that made 8's and 9's there. You CAN'T chip to the pin from in front of the green with that bunker and ridge in front of you. That was just moronic. I was there and the visual you get of trying to chip over that ridge to that left pin is basically impossible. And to guys like Choi and Z. Johnson who kept trying to get cute with flop shots from the left or behind the green, well, they deserve the scores they got. Let me make it clear that I'm not saying I could do any of this, but I am saying a pro should be able to.

Having said all that, from a viewer standpoint and entertainment value, I thought the pins on Sunday were too difficult and they should have put some of them in easier spots. But in my opinion, I still think there was an even par round there for Woods, Els or Phil, and they just didn't get the job done or play that great at all. Even par for any of them either puts them in contention, a tie, or wins the tournament. Phil blew the tourney on Sat when he played like a complete idiot. That 73 he had looked like a 78, and would have been if not for his brilliant short game.

[CasualLie]

[quote name='r9dhicks' date='21 June 2010 - 06:57 AM' timestamp='1277128632' post='2523143']
this right here is what is wrong with professional golf today. everybody who knows anything about golf knows that the US Open is supposed to be the toughest test of golf all year. so what part about the way pebble was set up did not support this? i mean jesus people, everyone is so used to seeing double digits under par, that when EVEN PAR, what a round of golf is based on, is the winning number, everyone freaks out. GET A GRIP, it was great US Open golf. I feel terrible for DJ, and and happy that Graeme won, he deserved it. Consistency wins the open. Always.
[/quote]


Except for feeling terrible for DJ, spot on post.

[quote name='hoganfan924' date='21 June 2010 - 07:00 AM' timestamp='1277128832' post='2523153']
Waaay too much luck involved on holes 7,14 and 17 IMO, the rest of the course seemed pretty fair to me.
[/quote]


Sounds like one of the crybaby players after their round. Unfair? Waaaaaaaaa....."it's the US Open - every man for himself." That's a line from a movie.



[quote name='JasonZ' date='21 June 2010 - 07:12 AM' timestamp='1277129523' post='2523181']
I think the USGA ruined what could have been and should have been a great showing for both talent and an unreal piece of property. I highly doubt anyone is getting on the phone today to make reservations to Pebble, which is a shame. Revenue is down 50% for Pebble and what was once a prize is now a joke. The course was set up to test who? No one wants to watch windmills, and I know I am not alone when I say if the top 150 had a tough going of it the USGA should be ashamed.

I agree the open should be difficult, the most difficult, the hardest of the hard. But the greens were past the point of bringing them back before the show even started, the pin placements were silly and no one wants to see 9's and 10's on 14.

The open is about theater, and there was none. It is the only other major that non-golfers actually will sit down and watch and with prime time coverage most thought at least from my conversations that "we" golfers are truly fools for playing this game. Trying to explain this is not what was supposed to happen it talking on deaf ears. I thought Tiger gave it to them good, and I welcome him tearing into Mike over the next month. The media had a field day with this. When you have to land the ball in a spot the size of a dinning room table on numerous greens, the course was set up wrong, just wrong.
[/quote]


Nonsense. Revenue is not down 50%, it's down due to the economy, butt not as much as 50%. And reservations have been on the uptick as of late.

The setup was excellent. As opposed to the setup in 2000 when TW won in a cakewalk because (1) he was on the top of his game and (2) very few could hit out of the thick rough like he can. Had the USGA set it up close to how the ATT tournament is done in February, with this week's weather, the winning score would be -20. Sure, lots of birdies, oooooh fun, but not a test of golf and not a US Open.

Where is it written that player's are entitled to tap in birdies on every hole with a good approach? Some of you need to get some perspective. #7 is exposed to the ocean and the elements 24/7, what should the USGA do, water down the green every day so the prima donna players and their shallow fans get to see lob wedges stick to 2 feet all day? On Saturday, Dustin Johnson and 10% of the field were smart enough to land their lob wedge in the correct position to make birdies. Now given the downhill, downwind shot which is tough at any yardage, seems to me the US Open showed exactly what it was supposed to, identify the best skilled golfers for that shot. All the guys who carried their wedge past the flag and expected to get it to check and spin back to the flag given the conditions basically are stupid. So while I don't have a problem with Ian Poulter whining on TV about his result, I do have a problem with a pro and their fan's sense of entitlement.


#17 is not much different. It's a long par 3 with a tricky wind and a small green. Again, should the USGA have cut down all the rough, watered down the green and what? Maybe widen the cup? All to please the spoiled fan who loves tap in birdies? It's a hard hole even in benign conditions, that's the way it goes. It's a tough hole even from the blue tees, that's the way it goes. Nowhere are you entitled to auto birdie putts, especially at the US Open. I just don't get the sense of entitlement by some people. Could you imagine if the US Open was for some strange reason at Cypress Point around the corner? What would they say about #16's 230+ yard carry over all water into the wind? Waaaaaa.....unfair. That McKenzie guy and the USGA are idiots.....waaaaaaa.

If TW was at the top of his game like he was in 2000, he would have won this week in a cakewalk again. I saw a lot of good players leave a lot of shots out there not because of the difficulty of the setup but the sheer stupidity in their decisions and ridiculous course management. The USGA didn't force Tiger into his 'three mental mistakes' as he put it yesterday. Three?!? And did anyone practice long putts from off the green? Did some of these guys bother talking to local caddies? If you have not practiced long putts off the green into the grain, how in the world do you expect to get it close in a tournament round? The decision making on #14 was just plain comical. The green doesn't need re-designing. Maybe some new course maps for the pros on the #14 tee that tells them "hit here" with "this club", then another one out in the middle saying the same thing. And then another one on the green saying stop flag hunting idiot, hit it in center of tier or bale out long right. Tom Kite just hit in the front left bunker every day. Was he crazy, or actually had a sensible strategy in mind?

With those weather conditions, par should have been obtainable by the top guys. But no, they kept flag hunting, and kept failing. At least some of the players admitted it.

No, it was not unfair. It was a great setup. And it was nice to see a US Open played without a weather delay.

[CasualLie]

[quote name='phil75070' date='21 June 2010 - 04:46 PM' timestamp='1277163991' post='2524643']
I think it is one thing to narrow the fairways and let the rough grow to emphasize accuracy, but the way the USGA sets up courses they are artificially contrived and set up in ways that the course designers never meant them to be played. I like the R&A approach to The Open. The course is what it is. Lost of rain and the rough is thicker and the course will play softer. No rain leading up to The Open and the course will play hard and fast. Nature dictates how the course is to play, not some god-like official deciding this is how it should be.
[/quote]

Are you kidding? Turnberry Ailsa Course was closed for a year before The Open was played there in 2009. A year for preparation!

Pebble Beach renovations were intended to bring the cliffs more into play like it was originally designed. As far as getting most historic courses to play as the designers meant, well that would be really tough given how these older courses have been adding tee boxes to lengthen holes.

[import49erz]

17 was hard but i dont think it was unfair because the tournament was not lost on that hole. I think as long as it plays consistent for all the players, no matter how easy or difficult, its a fair hole.

One thing i didnt like were the greens, as it wasn't consistent and just looked awful. I was there on wednesday for the practice round and they looked pretty good, but when I saw them on sunday it was like night and day.

Overall good tournament where the player with the least mistakes and most consistent game won.

[smoky25]

If your goal is even par for the winner, then you're going to make the vast majority of the best players in the world look like hackers, especially on the weekend. The tournament becomes a survival test, not a test of golfing skill-- who can make the fewest bogeys, not the most pars or birdies. As for identifying the best player- that, in my opinion, is impossible to do in one golf tournament. The only thing you're doing is identifying the best player that week, or that weekend, or for that matter only for the back nine on Sunday. The greats often do win the Open, but then again so do your GMacs and Lucas Glovers and Angel Cabreras etc. The way the USGA sets up a course for the Open, all you end up with is brutal golf, where you are more likely to see a really good player or players self destruct, while the fortunate winner hangs on for dear life, shoots 3 over on Sunday, and walks away with our National championship. As for some of the holes: #14- 100-125yd 3rd shot to a 25ft circle. Care to guess what the average distance-to-hole after that length shot is on Tour? Look it up, and keep in mind that that is on greens that hold a shot. #17- at 220 with a receptive green is a great, testing par 3- one of the greatest in the world. They took a really hard hole and made it a lucky shot hole. Brilliant.
Just looking back on this Open, I remember a couple of great shots- Micheel's double-eagle on #6, and Tiger's 2nd on 18 on Saturday. The rest is just a blur of missed 8ft par puts. Ugly golf. Congratulations USGA- you identified the champion survivor of 2010.

[Davidb27]

[quote]If TW was at the top of his game like he was in 2000, he would have won this week in a cakewalk again. I saw a lot of good players leave a lot of shots out there not because of the difficulty of the setup but the sheer stupidity in their decisions and ridiculous course management[/quote].

Great post, and while mine before it mentioned that I thought some of the pins should have been in easier spots for entertainment value, your take on the players crying and all this alleged unfairness is right on point. Has anyone here in this forum seen more unforced foul balls as they saw in this tournament? Let me know if you have, cause I saw more double crosses, pushed, pulls, duck hooks than I've ever seen in a major in decent weather conditions.

Why? Cause you can't just bomb it out there and make par, that's why. You need to make shots, and that causes players to hit foul balls. The majority of these newer players can't do that consistently. They can bomb it with a draw, but when a hole has death to the left, their rear end starts to pucker cause they can't dial up a fade with confidence. Or a low stinger, or a punch cut 3 wood.

I think cause of the shortness of the course some people (a lot of media) and the players forgot what tournament this was. It was the U.S. Open, and what is the key to success? Hitting the fairway, then hitting the green and two putting for par. Not chasing pins Phil. It's tournaments like this one that made me dislike him long ago. All the talent in the world yet sometimes manages his game like my buddy who can barely break 90.

Like the above post reads, Tiger on his game and not all screwed up like he's been would have won this tourney no doubt, and I hate Tiger, always have. But even in his press conference he had the right take on how to win this this tourney and how Pebble baits you into playing too aggressive.

Unfortunately, I do agree that is was not a very good tournament to watch. The first 3 days weren't bad, but Sunday sucked. I could care less if players struggle, but would have liked to see more movement up and down the leaderboard Sunday.

[offapex]

not sure how par = looking like hackers.
hard/brutal does not = unfair. remember, everybody plays the same course.

[sk373]

[quote]hard/brutal does not = unfair. remember, everybody plays the same course. [/quote]

everybody playing the same course != fair.

for example, if there is a hole where players can hit nearly identical shots but have wildly different results from said shots due to a design flaw, that's unfair.

[offapex]

[quote name='sk373' date='21 June 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1277182486' post='2525302']
[quote]hard/brutal does not = unfair. remember, everybody plays the same course. [/quote]

everybody playing the same course != fair.

for example, if there is a hole where players can hit nearly identical shots but have wildly different results from said shots due to a design flaw, that's unfair.
[/quote]

you ever play in the wind? should we play golf in a lab with controlled temperature, wind, etc.? what about a ball that lands in a fairway divot? unfair?

who lost the tournament on 7, 14 or 17? DJ lost it on 2,3 and 4. Phil lost it on 4 when he 3 putted from 15 feet. ernie lost it on 10 when he hit it into the cliffs/hazard. tiger, 3-wood into cliffs on the 6th?

[sk373]

[quote]you ever play in the wind? should we play golf in a lab with controlled temperature, wind, etc.? what about a ball that lands in a fairway divot? unfair?
[/quote]

umm . . . what part of "design flaw" do you not understand? wind and fairway divots do not fall under the definition of "design flaw"--those exist as a natural consequence of the weather and people playing golf.

OTOH, a hole that has a green that will not hold a perfectly struck shot, but instead requires one to bounce through the rough to land a ball on the green has a design flaw that can be considered to be unfair.

[offapex]

[quote name='sk373' date='21 June 2010 - 10:12 PM' timestamp='1277183543' post='2525323']
[quote]you ever play in the wind? should we play golf in a lab with controlled temperature, wind, etc.? what about a ball that lands in a fairway divot? unfair?
[/quote]

umm . . . what part of "design flaw" do you not understand? wind and fairway divots do not fall under the definition of "design flaw"--those exist as a natural consequence of the weather and people playing golf.

OTOH, a hole that has a green that will not hold a perfectly struck shot, but instead requires one to bounce through the rough to land a ball on the green has a design flaw that can be considered to be unfair.
[/quote]

wind and fairway divots result in nearly identical shots producing wildly different results, which, according to you, is unfair. maybe the design flaw is building a golf course in windy areas?

the only "perfectly" struck shot in golf is the one that holes out. if the hole requires you to bounce it through the rough, so be it, bounce it through the rough. don't play your "perfect" high cut when that "perfect" high cut won't hold. that's not the green's problem, that's the player's problem for not playing the correct shot.

here's the 4th round stats on the 17th:
46 pars and 32 bogeys
I don't see what the issue is. it's not like there were 78 triple bogeys on the 17th.
there's nothing wrong with par, and there's nothing wrong with having to be creative about your shots.

[sk373]

[quote]wind and fairway divots result in nearly identical shots producing wildly different results, which, according to you, is unfair. maybe the design flaw is building a golf course in windy areas? [/quote]

it seems you do not understand what "design flaw" means.

[quote]the only "perfectly" struck shot in golf is the one that holes out. if the hole requires you to bounce it through the rough, so be it, bounce it through the rough. don't play your "perfect" high cut when that "perfect" high cut won't hold. that's not the green's problem, that's the player's problem for not playing the correct shot.[/quote]

that's just dumb. if the hole requires you to bounce it through the rough, then the hole's design is unfair because the element of luck has been artificially introduced *as a result of the design*. sometimes the ball will get stuck in the rough, sometimes it won't. in this situation getting the ball on the green would require luck in addition to skill, and that's not fair.

[jons1]

this is what i would tell little 8 year olds playing junior golf.... everyone plays the same course, which means everything out there is fair. play your best, be honest, ask someone if you're not sure, and add it up at the end. now go have fun. do adults in here really need that speech too?

[sk373]

[quote]this is what i would tell little 8 year olds playing junior golf.... everyone plays the same course, which means everything out there is fair. play your best, be honest, ask someone if you're not sure, and add it up at the end. now go have fun. do adults in here really need that speech too? [/quote]

where does this idea that "same" automatically equates to "fair" come from? "same" does not automatically result in "fair".

[jons1]

same course, same opportunities, same rules.

the only usga setup i've seen that was questionable was at shinnecock hills many years back. that got nearly mickey mouse on a few greens. this course gave all the players the same opportunity to score, and the rest was just golf. you can't complain that it's hard to hold a particular green because everyone faced the same conditions. luck is when it's hurricane winds in the afternoon and calm all morning, that's luck. what they had out there was just difficult, and there's a difference. it's their jobs, and the most elite .001% of golfers in the entire world, to overcome that.

[mark m]

[size="3"][font="ITCFranklinGothicStd-Demi"][size="3"][left][size="2"]Then you weren't paying attention when it was at the Olympic Club. One fairway was unhittable due to the slope and speed of it - so balls ran down into the rough or worse, right against it. They also had a real bad hole location which created a firestorm (Payne Steward, JD, and others).[/size][/left]
[left][size="2"]Pebble: The USGA did the best they could with what they had to work with. They did not design the golf course. They also have to have consistent conditions - from the practice putting greens to every green on the course - they should have the same firmness and speed.[/size][/left]
[left][size="2"]#17: Each lobe of the green is only about 13-15 yards deep from the tee box. The left side does not offer the ability to run one on. So it's tough to hit from 220, even if it was soft enough to accept a well struck shot. It was too firm for that. I bet they were hoping that it would play into the wind, but they weren't that lucky. With the depth of the green, it would play better as a shorter hole. But then you would be going against history. Jack's one iron, Watson hit 2 iron, etc. Can't do that. So they were stuck in a box. [/size][/left]
[left][size="2"]Whether you think it was a good set up or not, why not use the USGA's own criteria on the subject which is laid out in "How to conduct a Competition" : [/size][url="http://www.usga.org/rules/Rules/"][size="2"]http://www.usga.org/rules/Rules/[/size][/url][/left]
[left]3. Hole Locations[/left]
[/size][/size][/font][size="1"][font="SwiftEF-Light"][size="1"][left]Many factors affect selection of hole locations. The first and most important is good judgment in deciding what will give fair results. Do not be tricky in locating holes.[/left]
[left]Following are specific points:[/left]
[left](a) Study the design of the hole as the architect intended it to be played. Know the length of the shot to the putting green and how it may be affected by the probable conditions for the day that is, wind and other weather elements, condition of the turf from which the shot will be played, and holding quality of the putting green.[/left]
[left](b) There must be enough putting green surface between the hole and the front and the sides of the putting green to accommodate the required shot. For example, if the hole requires a long iron or wood shot to the putting green, the hole should be located deeper in the putting green and further from its sides than should be the case if the hole requires a short pitch shot. [/left]
[left][size="2"]Everything in there is well thought out and hard to argue with. Did they follow it?[/size][/left]
[left][size="2"]You be the judge.[/size][size="2"][/size][/left]
[left][size="2"][/size][/left]
[left][size="2"][/size][/left]


[/size][/size][/font]

[JasonZ]

[quote name='CasualLie' date='21 June 2010 - 08:18 PM' timestamp='1277165899' post='2524703']
[quote name='r9dhicks' date='21 June 2010 - 06:57 AM' timestamp='1277128632' post='2523143']
this right here is what is wrong with professional golf today. everybody who knows anything about golf knows that the US Open is supposed to be the toughest test of golf all year. so what part about the way pebble was set up did not support this? i mean jesus people, everyone is so used to seeing double digits under par, that when EVEN PAR, what a round of golf is based on, is the winning number, everyone freaks out. GET A GRIP, it was great US Open golf. I feel terrible for DJ, and and happy that Graeme won, he deserved it. Consistency wins the open. Always.
[/quote]


Except for feeling terrible for DJ, spot on post.

[quote name='hoganfan924' date='21 June 2010 - 07:00 AM' timestamp='1277128832' post='2523153']
Waaay too much luck involved on holes 7,14 and 17 IMO, the rest of the course seemed pretty fair to me.
[/quote]


Sounds like one of the crybaby players after their round. Unfair? Waaaaaaaaa....."it's the US Open - every man for himself." That's a line from a movie.





Nonsense. Revenue is not down 50%, it's down due to the economy, butt not as much as 50%. And reservations have been on the uptick as of late.

The setup was excellent. As opposed to the setup in 2000 when TW won in a cakewalk because (1) he was on the top of his game and (2) very few could hit out of the thick rough like he can. Had the USGA set it up close to how the ATT tournament is done in February, with this week's weather, the winning score would be -20. Sure, lots of birdies, oooooh fun, but not a test of golf and not a US Open.

Where is it written that player's are entitled to tap in birdies on every hole with a good approach? Some of you need to get some perspective. #7 is exposed to the ocean and the elements 24/7, what should the USGA do, water down the green every day so the prima donna players and their shallow fans get to see lob wedges stick to 2 feet all day? On Saturday, Dustin Johnson and 10% of the field were smart enough to land their lob wedge in the correct position to make birdies. Now given the downhill, downwind shot which is tough at any yardage, seems to me the US Open showed exactly what it was supposed to, identify the best skilled golfers for that shot. All the guys who carried their wedge past the flag and expected to get it to check and spin back to the flag given the conditions basically are stupid. So while I don't have a problem with Ian Poulter whining on TV about his result, I do have a problem with a pro and their fan's sense of entitlement.


#17 is not much different. It's a long par 3 with a tricky wind and a small green. Again, should the USGA have cut down all the rough, watered down the green and what? Maybe widen the cup? All to please the spoiled fan who loves tap in birdies? It's a hard hole even in benign conditions, that's the way it goes. It's a tough hole even from the blue tees, that's the way it goes. Nowhere are you entitled to auto birdie putts, especially at the US Open. I just don't get the sense of entitlement by some people. Could you imagine if the US Open was for some strange reason at Cypress Point around the corner? What would they say about #16's 230+ yard carry over all water into the wind? Waaaaaa.....unfair. That McKenzie guy and the USGA are idiots.....waaaaaaa.

If TW was at the top of his game like he was in 2000, he would have won this week in a cakewalk again. I saw a lot of good players leave a lot of shots out there not because of the difficulty of the setup but the sheer stupidity in their decisions and ridiculous course management. The USGA didn't force Tiger into his 'three mental mistakes' as he put it yesterday. Three?!? And did anyone practice long putts from off the green? Did some of these guys bother talking to local caddies? If you have not practiced long putts off the green into the grain, how in the world do you expect to get it close in a tournament round? The decision making on #14 was just plain comical. The green doesn't need re-designing. Maybe some new course maps for the pros on the #14 tee that tells them "hit here" with "this club", then another one out in the middle saying the same thing. And then another one on the green saying stop flag hunting idiot, hit it in center of tier or bale out long right. Tom Kite just hit in the front left bunker every day. Was he crazy, or actually had a sensible strategy in mind?

With those weather conditions, par should have been obtainable by the top guys. But no, they kept flag hunting, and kept failing. At least some of the players admitted it.

No, it was not unfair. It was a great setup. And it was nice to see a US Open played without a weather delay.


[/quote]

ummm, you are dead wrong about the state of Pebble. Go read Golfweek, its all there in black and white, they laid of 50 people, shut down club 19, blah, blah, blah. Mike has had no problems with Bandon, and opened a new course in the worst economy ever. Kohler is doing very well. Price has no impact on destinations for this demographic. How many people will want to go back to Pebble now? I know I wont. And I always said this is the place I want to go to spend my last days. My next trip is bandon, and I play Kohler all the time.

[offapex]

fwiw: when I played bandon in nov 2009 the caddy said business was down 40%. the economy has affected all golf courses, from the muni to pebble.

[JasonZ]

[quote name='shift' date='22 June 2010 - 11:13 AM' timestamp='1277219587' post='2525896']
fwiw: when I played bandon in nov 2009 the caddy said business was down 40%. the economy has affected all golf courses, from the muni to pebble.
[/quote]

A caddy said this? Mike has not New extended runway, new airline schedules, and it is probably the hardest destination golf course in the USA to get to.

I hear they are very, very happy.

[birdieboy52]

[quote name='JasonZ' date='22 June 2010 - 09:52 AM' timestamp='1277218376' p] My next trip is bandon, and I play Kohler all the time.
[/quote]
Just curious, how many times / year do you play in Kohler and which course do you play?

[marmooskapaul]

[quote name='rgk5' date='21 June 2010 - 10:49 AM' timestamp='1277131745' post='2523267']
Revenue is down 50% for Pebble and what was once a prize is now a joke.

I would venture that the $500+ green fee is more to blame.
[/quote]


Agree, they can call it a public course, but at that price what % of the public are they catering too?
I could never justify paying that much to play a round of golf.
Paul

[JasonZ]

I get up there 2 or 3 times per year, I like River the best and from the tips it is one of the hardest courses I have played and worth every penny. Meadow is just ok, but it is a nice break if you play 36 in the same day.
Irish is a great adventure, and you really have no clue you are standing on Lake Michigan. Straits is just unreal, but River is a players course IMO.
Blind Man's Bluff on Irish is one of the coolest holes ever. When you get there and get the bunker count for the property it is easy to say no way. But they are all there. The use of the rail road cars is truly a feat, the course s built on them, and they had used the left overs for bridges.

IMO, Kohler is the greatest property in the country only because of what Herb created. Worth every penny and the caddy staff is a pleasure!

[DevilGolfer]

I think the green on #14 is a terrible design. 3/4's of the green is basically a false front and side. I don't remember how it plays at the Pro-Am but a green where you can only place the flag in a 10ft by 15ft area is awful. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only place the can place the flag is basically in a five foot wide line from the bunker towards the back of the green.

[sk373]

[quote]I think the green on #14 is a terrible design. 3/4's of the green is basically a false front and side. I don't remember how it plays at the Pro-Am but a green where you can only place the flag in a 10ft by 15ft area is awful. Correct me if I'm wrong but the only place the can place the flag is basically in a five foot wide line from the bunker towards the back of the green. [/quote]

it's not a terrible design--it's a dated design. #14 is terrible if the green stimps at 12+, but it was never meant to play that fast. Pebble is an old course with old time greens. and greens back in the day played much slower than they do now.

[cohenfive]

[quote name='rgk5' date='21 June 2010 - 07:49 AM' timestamp='1277131745' post='2523267']<br>Revenue is down 50% for Pebble and what was once a prize is now a joke. <br><br>I would venture that the $500+ green fee is more to blame.<br>[/quote]<br><br>it is not $500+, the greens fee is $495...a bargain at the price!<br><br>my wife and son went saturday and now he wants to play pebble for his 18th birthday....sounds like a plan!<br><br>as for the course setup, i think the major issue as others have said is that it is an older design with greens designed for slower green speeds and softer conditions. 14 and 17 were not up to usga standards of 'tough but fair', but the rest of the course seemed pretty much standard us open to me. there's not much you can do about the poa greens, that's just northern california grass conditions. the issue i had with 14 and 17 is that those holes brought too much luck into the equation. the course had birdies in it as evidenced by phil and tiger and dustin's 66's during the week. sunday was a different day for some reason, maybe the course just firmed up too much to allow for some birdies. <br><br>the us open is often a battle of attrition on sunday, and this fit that aspect of the mold. <br>

[CasualLie]

[quote name='JasonZ' date='22 June 2010 - 07:52 AM' timestamp='1277218376' post='2525860']
ummm, you are dead wrong about the state of Pebble. Go read Golfweek, its all there in black and white, they laid of 50 people, shut down club 19, blah, blah, blah. Mike has had no problems with Bandon, and opened a new course in the worst economy ever. Kohler is doing very well. Price has no impact on destinations for this demographic. How many people will want to go back to Pebble now? I know I wont. And I always said this is the place I want to go to spend my last days. My next trip is bandon, and I play Kohler all the time.
[/quote]


I'll take my source (the head of all reservations at PB Co.) over Golfweek any day. Golfweek is like the People magazine of golf. Overall pretty good, but week to week they have several inaccuracies. You can't compare PB to Kohler or Bandon, very different history and very different demographics. If you ever dined at Club XIX, you would know they pushed that place to be open a lot longer than it should. That restaurant would never have survived if it was just a few miles down the road in Carmel Village. Pebble's revenue comes mostly from corporate outings so in this economy you can be sure revenue is down and as the economy recovers, the big corps will be back. And price does have an impact when you have to foot your own bill which is why Bandon is doing well picking off the customers who cannot afford Pebble on their own dime.

I'm not going to argue with the guy crazy enough to think Pebble's revenues are going to be hurt by how the US Open looked on TV. You just let me know when Pebble files for bankruptcy which according to you who has the axe to grind ought to be happening some time soon since you won't be back.

[One_Putt_Blunder]

I walked the full course Sunday morning and camped out in the bleachers on 17 for the afternoon, I saw every group in the field hit at least one shot. Here are my thoughts on the setup.

1: 14 green is pretty tough but its still deep enough to expect the worlds best players to be able to put a wedge on it. With the green speeds they were using this week it made it impossible to use anyother placements than up on the self. The front bunker on 14 green is massive and downright scary looking.

2: The fairways were mowed so tight I have seen some muni greens with longer grass. Ok maybe not muni green tight, but man they were nice.

3: The hill coming up 6 is a way higher than I ever remember it. I watched Ryan Moore advance a hybrid maybe 100 yards right smack into the middle of the hill from the left primary rough. The rough just killed any clubhead speed he had and the ball just went nowhere. Same can be said for the drop down the 9th fairway, must be 70 feet from the high point just over the fairway bunkers down to the low point on the ocean side.

4: I thought the greens looked like the were rolling good, they just have so much slope to them that the USGA may have been better off slowing them down just a touch to get them to play a bit more realistic.

5: 17th may have been the most brutal setup I have ever witnessed. I saw all but the first 4-5 groups come through there. Only one birdie was made in the 8 hours I was there and it did not come from a putter, Tim Clark's darn near impossible shortsided bunker shot was the only birdie to fall.

Tigers shot on 17 was about 2 feet from being perfect. if it had been 2 feet shorter it would have caught the mound and ended up below the hole for the best look at birdie we would have seen allday, instead it just caught the downslope and rolled through the green.

There were 2 really memorable moments on 17 the first of which you prob didnt see on tv. One of the early groups(names escape me right now) after finishing up on 17 the two players came into the gallery and grabbed thier fathers to replace thier caddies and carry thier bags down the 18th hole. Really classy move by those two guys.

The second was Tom Watson coming through he got a standing ovation, he really seemed to be taking in every bit of it and enjoying his time at Pebble.

6: I thought shaving down the rough and having the fairways run right off into the ocean might have been the worst part of the setup. You could hit a pretty darn good drive and still end up in the hazard, I was not a big fan of that especially since most of those fairways all sloped towards the pacific anyways.

7: You could really see the difference in spin by each cut of fairway/rough, once they got into the primary green side rough there was no stopping the ball.

8: Overall I thought that Pebble was in very good condition for the lack of water they gave it to firm it up. It really reminded me more of a Open Championship than anything.
I cant decide if my favorite spot on the course is #7 tee or #18 tee, both views are amazing and you just want to sit there for hours and take it all in.

[kamandi]

This type of course set-up does [b]not[/b] identify the best players.

When a course is set-up like this, it negates the advantages better players have over other players.

When the greens are this terrible, the advantage of the better putters are neglected. Tiger said the greens were awful; Mickelson was a little more subtle when he said he had to be putting uphill, otherwise the ball wouldn't hold the line. Basically, you needed some speed even towards the hole in order for the ball to keep the line. The advantages of players who are good at 1-putting, like Tiger and Phil, are negated as everyone tries to 2-putt close to the hole. Any downhill putt, all the players were leaving them short, because the greens did not roll true.

Because of the set-up, the natural advantage long drivers have over other players is also negated. So now, the recommended places to land are reachable for everyone. People who try to maintain their distance advantage will get burned if they're off just a bit; Dustin Johnson could maintain almost excellent driving for 3 rounds, but it finally caught up with him. The course removes the natural distance advantage of longer hitters, so it levels the playing field for shorter hitters.

With the approaches, trying to bounce before the greens gave inconsistent results; some would bounce to the greens, while others wouldn't, depending on the surface (conditions, lie, etc) before the greens. Those inconsistencies introduce too much of an element of luck.

The conditions were set up not to show who's the best player, as the driving and putting aspects leveled the playing field; they were set up to show the best player for [b]this[/b] kind of course. Removing the driving and putting advantages, who is the best game manager? not the best player.

Why not choose the worst maintained golf course, with sun baked dirt for fairways, sandy greens, and call it the US Open? It's the same thing.

Maybe they can also put a windmill on the putting green for extra challenge?