[Mark_Fine]

Why was Bryson +10 for the week and 14 shots behind the leaders at Olympia Fields?  It was set up similar to U.S. Open conditions? 


Bryson has always been an excellent player and a multiple winner on tour.  You have to expect he is going to win more by adding 30 yards or more of length and all that strength to power the ball out of the rough but it won't guarantee him wins every week.  Furthermore we all know that added distance (at all levels) is changing the game of golf.  Some of the change is positive and some is negative.  Bryson's win might get courses to look at rough as a hazard differently.  When you are that long and that strong it is not much of a deterrent. 

[JESII]

I believe that Pinehurst #2 may very well neuter much of the advantage that DeChambeau and other bombers have over straighter but shorter players. At WFW DeChambeau was able with study to determine within a reasonably tight results band how the rough would impact his shots and then plot his way around the course, knowing where to leave his approach greens misses in order to most easily be able to scramble for his pars. That study of the rough was possible because it was reasonably similar hole by hole and shot by shot, and the greens and surrounds were receptive to approaches that got up into the air.


The "rough" on #2 is the opposite - -clumps of wire grass, rutted sandy lies, pine cones and other debris, and a whole lot of almost unplayable plant material make it frequently virtually impossible to have any semblance of control or predictability on the shot. The problem might even be magnified if a super-bomber drives it too close to the green and doesn't leave a full shot, as many lies require a lot of clubbed speed just to get the club through to launch the ball. And then combine that with the style of crowned, exceedingly firm greens and surrounds and the dynamic totally tilts. I can't help but believe that a Webb Simpson from 160 yards in the fairway will beat DeChambeau from 100 but in the "rough" far more often than not.

Are the fairways at #2 25 yards wide? I think Bryson had 90+% of his drives within 25 yards width of his target. He may have only hit 40% of the fairways, but a great deal of the misses I saw were pretty close to the fairway and on the correct side.

[David_Madison]

I believe that Pinehurst #2 may very well neuter much of the advantage that DeChambeau and other bombers have over straighter but shorter players. At WFW DeChambeau was able with study to determine within a reasonably tight results band how the rough would impact his shots and then plot his way around the course, knowing where to leave his approach greens misses in order to most easily be able to scramble for his pars. That study of the rough was possible because it was reasonably similar hole by hole and shot by shot, and the greens and surrounds were receptive to approaches that got up into the air.


The "rough" on #2 is the opposite - -clumps of wire grass, rutted sandy lies, pine cones and other debris, and a whole lot of almost unplayable plant material make it frequently virtually impossible to have any semblance of control or predictability on the shot. The problem might even be magnified if a super-bomber drives it too close to the green and doesn't leave a full shot, as many lies require a lot of clubbed speed just to get the club through to launch the ball. And then combine that with the style of crowned, exceedingly firm greens and surrounds and the dynamic totally tilts. I can't help but believe that a Webb Simpson from 160 yards in the fairway will beat DeChambeau from 100 but in the "rough" far more often than not.

Are the fairways at #2 25 yards wide? I think Bryson had 90+% of his drives within 25 yards width of his target. He may have only hit 40% of the fairways, but a great deal of the misses I saw were pretty close to the fairway and on the correct side.

Jim - Not sure exactly what you are asking. First, are you saying that 90% of Bryson's drives were within 12.5 yards of his intended target line? As for #'2 fairway widths, they vary greatly, opening and pinching hole by hole but tending to get tighter the longer the drive until they open up near the green. With the flanks of the fairways not being irrigated, they play narrower than their actual width. And there's no graduated rough that penalizes shots more as you miss the fairway by greater amounts. You can be near-dead just 5' off the edge of the fairway and then find a perfectly smooth firm sandy lie 20 yards further off target. It's totally random. My sense with anyone not hitting a lot of fairways is that the odds of squeezing out pars is a lot lower on #2 even with extraordinary length off the tee than it would be on a parkland course like WFW, and the even slightly inaccurate bomber will be subject to death by paper cut under hyper dry/firm conditions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()