This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Choose your ďF-WordĒ
« Last post by John Kirk on Yesterday at 07:41:36 PM »
There are a few current threads talking about Pinehurst.  I returned to make a couple of last comments on this one thread that I commented on.

All that was needed was for Rory to make the putt on 18.  Yes, he was faced with one of the bad lies that can happen when a player is in the Pinehurst native; either in the wire grass, or left with a swing that will be impacted by the big bunch of grass.  In my opinion, Rory correctly assessed his options and hit the exact right shot.  His club closed shut as it hit the bunch grass, and his smothered shot bounded up to the front of the green.

He then followed with a very good chip to 3 feet, 9 inches.  After watching the chip replay, it appears that Rory hit it exactly where he wanted, but it did not break left to right as he expected.

I watched a replay of his putt a few times.  It's a 4-foot putt, and Rory is aiming at a spot about 2 inches left of the left edge of the hole.  It looks like the putter head went in the proper direction.  Whether he opened the blade a bit is debatable.  What is clear is that it started heading right almost immediately and then turned hard right about halfway there.  A 4 foot downhiller that starts left and breaks so hard that more than half of the ball is outside the right edge is some wicked putt.

Finally, one might look to DeChambeau's unusually upright swing as a clear advantage in the Pinehurst native.  He takes the club back so steeply and vertically, it minimizes the chances of a nearby bunch grass affecting the swing.

I played golf early yesterday and then watched the whole thing a few hours late.  I enjoyed the final day of the tournament very much, and thought the leaderboard reflected a fine cross section of the best players.  I thought the course required a limited assortment of shot types, and I think I'd prefer to play golf at a number of the best new modern designs.
Golf Course Architecture / Bryson & Rory
« Last post by cary lichtenstein on Yesterday at 07:41:07 PM »
I thought after watching the US Open for 4 straight days, rooting for both Bryson & Rory, I'd drop my 2 cents in here.

I wanted Rory to win in the worst way, I root for him every time he plays. He is soooo smooth, the best swing in golf since Freddy Couples. I wanted him to break his 10 year drought.

Bryson was a giant surprise. Boy did he ever want it and despite missing fairway after fairway, he came up with one great shot after another.

The terrible drive on 18, watching him almost unable to make a decision what to do. And then, a 55 yard bunkers shot to 4 feet, omg, unbelieveable. Bryson wanted it more.

We've all missed 3-4 footers, leaving the blade a little open at impact, easing into it. tough to hit it hard out of fear of running it 6-7 feet by.

Bryson's all around behaviour was great, he has grown up and is a star. He celebrated like the Tiger of old.

Bryson won me over, while I never liked the greens that rejected ball after ball, Bryson was the last man standing, Bravo!!!!!!!!
I played P2 before the Coore-Crenshaw redo. We found it to be totally playable and fun (all 10-14 handicaps). We thought it was an easy bogey course, with chances for pars and birdies. Of course, green speeds were fast but very reasonable and the classic crowned  greens still repelled poorly struck shots and shots hit to the wrong areas. If I remember correctly, lots of pine straw, with little rough. Big numbers could generally be avoided. One interesting general observation was that we did not feel like it was a top 10 course, very good, but not spectacular. The Coore-Crenshaw redo looks like it has regained the "spectacular!"
Golf Course Architecture / Re: USGA/Pinehurst verdict: F as in failure
« Last post by Craig Sweet on Yesterday at 07:29:06 PM »
Bryson won the tournament on the greens....period.
Golf Course Architecture / Re: USGA/Pinehurst verdict: F as in failure
« Last post by Pete_Pittock on Yesterday at 07:12:00 PM »
Bryson finished 66th in driving accuracy. All previous winners were in the top 10. Rory was top 10. Yes, luck in the natives was a huge factor.

There were 73 players on the weekend.  The player who was average (37th) hit seven more fairways than BAD over the tournament, less than two more per day.  DeChambeau was the runaway leader in driving length. It seemed that recovery shots from the rough more than not allowed the player to advance the ball close to the green. I'd posit that distance was more important than accuracy, as the runner up in driving distance also was runner-up in the tournament.

Two other takes. 1) Bryson had to change his driver's head just before he headed to the first tee on Sunday, presumably because the original one was damaged. His Sunday stats were worst, and there was a steady decline as the tournament proceeded. Maybe it was beginning to fail in earlier rounds.
                         2) He had physio mid round on Saturday. Any physical impediment will likely affect distance and accuracy, and with his swing speed, the effect on him would be greater.

Golf Course Architecture / Re: USGA/Pinehurst verdict: F as in failure
« Last post by Peter Sayegh on Yesterday at 07:02:29 PM »
Nobody is arguing that Rory didnít  drop the ball. The question is should Bryson have been near the top with as many fairways that  he missed. It is the US OPEN after all.

Yes he should. He answered the questions presented by the course and USGA. Thatís why he is the champion. The others didnít. Thatís the way it works.

So wait, now folks on GCA are complaining that there's too MUCH luck in golf?

I must have misread everything posted on here the last 20 years.  ;D

Daryl, Matt, thank you for your posts.
GCA has never embraced the fact tournaments/majors are simply competitions...
Okay, I've just pushed a major update to the extension (hence bumping the version to 2.0.0). This version adds some deescalation features, that I think could be helpful in some of the more contentious threads.

The new feature includes a "Fade" button, that allows users to fade the appearance of posts by users they may be regularly in conflict with. The feature also allows users to "Mute" (100% fade level) if hostility becomes too much, which will collapse their comments so they won't be visible unless actively sought out.

I know these features might seem a bit strange, but I've notice that similar features on Hacker News tend to be helpful (for my temperament especially), at reminding myself that I don't necessarily need to respond when things have gone a bit off the rails. It should also be able to help others ignore other people fighting in specific threads... however the muting is not thread-specific yet, so for now, muted users will need to be unmuted to appear in other threads

As of now, these new features will only be accessible if you're logged in, simply because accessing user ID's is a bit more difficult when you aren't (sorry lurkers). Future improvements should eventually include thread-specific muting, and access to the feature by anyone, not just logged in users.

This new version could be held up a bit by Mozilla for a bit, and will certainly take at least a day for the Chrome store to approve it (they are very slow), simply because I've added a new browser storage requirement. It should be avalible to everyone within the next 36 hours unless something goes wrong. So, look for version 2.0.0 if you don't have auto-update turned on. The links to Firefox and Chrome are in my signature.

Obviously let me know if the code is somehow broken, and helpful feedback is always welcome.
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Challenging for pros yet fun for amateurs
« Last post by Wayne_Kozun on Yesterday at 06:12:17 PM »
I was wondering how you would find the balls in the natural areas, even with caddies.  You would almost need forecaddies all over the course.
Sounds like No. 2 needs a signature hole. Maybe they can turn 15 into an island green or something.

But just thinking architecturally, I think 3 at No. 2 is at least as interesting for professional play as 10 at Riviera. 10 at Riv is fantastic in concept with the three different intended routes of play from the tee. But in practice, it seems like everyone just bangs the ball somewhere up near the green and hopes to get up and down. I don't find it all that tactically interesting as a result. Even for recreational play, it's pretty clear that anyone who has the distance to get within 30 or 40 yards of hole-high should just do so, since the layup options leave really difficult shots from angles that are somewhere between "disadvantageous" and "impossible."

3 at No. 2 features really similar angles and options... you can lay it back just short of the right-side bunker that juts out into the fairway to leave a distance wedge, take it over that bunker and leave a pitch, or take a rip at the green and take your chances. The green's orientation is a little more favorable from the left side as compared with Riviera's 10th - you've got a better chance of spinning an approach and holding the putting surface at No. 2 whereas at Riviera the layups are really just fool's gold. No matter what angle you take on 10 at Riviera, you're going to be facing something akin to a recovery shot to a teensy tiny target for your second. The fact that you can trade some distance for a truly advantageous angle on 3 at No. 2 makes me think that it's the slightly more tactically interesting hole in 2024.

Donald Ross seemed like a pretty low key guy. All those years drinking morning coffee right alongside the 3rd fairway, and he never thought to icon it up. Real missed opportunity.

This course, with its shortcomings in iconography, also features Ben Hogan's purported favorite par 4 and the hole that inspired the following:
Golf Course Architecture / Re: Challenging for pros yet fun for amateurs
« Last post by Mike H on Yesterday at 05:32:07 PM »
After watching this weekend, i'm not sure how the average amateur can have "fun" while playing Pinehurst #2.  Pinehurst #2 is a fantastic course but if pros can't handle the Pinehurst greens, can amateurs?  Even then, I can't fathom most amateurs being able to navigate that course in 4 hours.  Even as challenging as the greens were, a lot of players still put up good scores throughout the week.  I'm beginning to think there isn't much a course can do architecturally to challenge players other than making the conditions that week unplayable.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10