Question:
How can it possibly be unfair if its unfair to everyone? No one is going to give a rat’s behind if the winner of the Open shoots 10 under or 10 over, as long as he’s the low score. Golfers complaining about the conditions? Sure. The same guys that bitch about the course being unfair are the same guys that didn’t shoot good enough to make it to the leader board. The same was true of Pinehurst… the same was true of the Senior Open. The winners said "Yeah it was kinda tough but I managed" and some of the losers cried that the greens were too wavey and unfair. I say, "Tough! You’re a pro; there’s no one better capable to play a challenging course than you. All the other guys on the course have the same odds of screwing up as you so how can you possibly say its unfair? My 2 pesos, Alex Goepel
Response:
I think there were a lot of the top scorers were saying it was too hard also. The point of saying it is too hard is the fact that more luck than good play and skill is needed to win. For example the fairways are very hard and narrow so even if you hit your shot right where you want it it could go anywhere.
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How can it possibly be unfair if its unfair to everyone? No one is going to give a rat’s behind if the winner of the Open shoots 10 under or 10 over, as long as he’s the low score. Golfers complaining about the conditions? Sure. The same guys that bitch about the course being unfair are the same guys that didn’t shoot good enough to make it to the leader board. The same was true of Pinehurst… the same was true of the Senior Open. The winners said "Yeah it was kinda tough but I managed" and some of the losers cried that the greens were too wavey and unfair. I say, "Tough! You’re a pro; there’s no one better capable to play a challenging course than you. All the other guys on the course have the same odds of screwing up as you so how can you possibly say its unfair? My 2 pesos, Alex Goepel
Response:
How can it possibly be unfair if its unfair to everyone? No one is going to give a rat’s behind if the winner of the Open shoots 10 under or 10 over, as long as he’s the low score. Golfers complaining about the conditions? Sure. The same guys that bitch about the course being unfair are the same guys that didn’t shoot good enough to make it to the leader board. The same was true of Pinehurst… the same was true of the Senior Open. The winners said "Yeah it was kinda tough but I managed" and some of the losers cried that the greens were too wavey and unfair. I say, "Tough! You’re a pro; there’s no one better capable to play a challenging course than you. All the other guys on the course have the same odds of screwing up as you so how can you possibly say its unfair? My 2 pesos, Alex Goepel
Thank you, Alex, for you express EXACTLY what I thought of hearing all the pro`s whine along … Geez ! Could you imagine what Garcia would`ve said if he had scored a 74 for example ? Suddenly the course would`nt have been unfair und Mom and Pop would`ve have been so proud of their son … Stop the whining for god`s sake !
Response:
I think there were a lot of the top scorers were saying it was too hard also.
Name a year when they didn’t say that. At least in this decade. The point of saying it is too hard is the fact that more luck than good play and skill is needed to win.
Baloney. A test of the best is just that. Tiger Woods is again ranked #1 in the world — look at his play during the "unfair" U.S. Open and the "unfair" Open Championship over the next three days and explain to me how and in what ways his play can be attributed to luck. There will always be players who shoot over 80 in a major championship because there will always be streaky players. If Mark O’Meara’s game is off while playing Torrey Pines, he’ll shoot 73. If it’s off while playing Carnoustie, he’ll shoot 83 as he did today. It’s all relative and it will always be thus. As long as the best players and the "hot" players of the week can shoot par, there’s nothing at all unfair about it. It has been called the toughest golf course in the world by those who know about such things. Would you prefer that it didn’t live up to its reputation? For example the fairways are very hard and narrow…
Boo-hoo. so even if you hit your shot right where you want it it could go anywhere.
Not if you hit it right where you want it. (I get your point, just quibbling with your wording.) I think if you watched tapes of every major tournament from the past 30 years, you’d be surprised at the number of "unfair" courses (was it the ‘78 U.S. Open that was won with a score of +7 over?). Sorry if this comes off as a flame. I just get a little weary of reading the same old comments after every major. They’re majors. They’re supposed to be tough. Punishingly tough. As Justin Leonard said today, it may not be much fun out there, but there’s satisfaction when it’s over. For four weeks out of the year, players forego fun golf to take their Golf Final Exams. May that never change. John Larrabee
Response:
I think there were a lot of the top scorers were saying it was too hard also. The point of saying it is too hard is the fact that more luck than good play and skill is needed to win. For example the fairways are very hard and narrow so even if you hit your shot right where you want it it could go anywhere.
Being a 16 handicapper, I have the intimate knowledge that the "right shot" that ends up in the rough was not actually the right shot. If the pros can’t use their driver, then the hole does not call for a driver. It is not the right shot. A long Carnoustie par 4 into the wind may require a 3 iron, 5 iron, and a chip and a put. Those are the ‘right shots’ for this course. Fucking millionaires are ruining the game. Michael DeKelver michaeldATnewforceDOTca
Response:
: Baloney. A test of the best is just that. Tiger Woods is again ranked #1 in : the world — look at his play during the "unfair" U.S. Open and the "unfair" : Open Championship over the next three days and explain to me how and in what : ways his play can be attributed to luck. There will always be players who : shoot over 80 in a major championship because there will always be streaky : players. If Mark O’Meara’s game is off while playing Torrey Pines, he’ll shoot : 73. If it’s off while playing Carnoustie, he’ll shoot 83 as he did today. : It’s all relative and it will always be thus. As long as the best players and : the "hot" players of the week can shoot par, there’s nothing at all unfair : about it. : It has been called the toughest golf course in the world by those who know : about such things. Would you prefer that it didn’t live up to its reputation? Beautifully put. Thank you. : I think if you watched tapes of every major tournament from the past 30 years, : you’d be surprised at the number of "unfair" courses (was it the ‘78 U.S. Open : that was won with a score of +7 over?). 1974, at Winged Foot. Hale Irwin’s winning score was 287. — Mark Vincent, Defender of the Unending Dissertation "If you lose the game on the field you cannot win it back in the clubhouse, and anyone who thinks you can is a loser." –Bill James
Response:
OK then I’ve got a better idea. Lets start having tounament stops at your local public links. You know, the courses that you play every day and come back saying, "The course is alright but there’s this fungus on the greens and they have to leave them as long as you’d think a fringe should be. Or there’s construction on the 6th hole because of that new highway they are putting in. How would the pros feel if they had to deal with a course that is in such a shape that the greens aren’t true and that little deformities can throw the line of the ball off so a well made putt doesn’t sink. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is unfair. From what I understand the R & A made Carnoustie significantly tougher than its been in the past. Fairways are cut too narrow and the rough has been fertilized to make it grow like a jungle. Bunkers deepened and greens keps hard and fast. Granted I CAN see a valid point in saying the golfers need to be able to make ’scoring’ shots, birdies, occasional eagles, etc. However, this is golf. Every one of us has played a course that we walked away from shaking our heads saying, "OK I shot 10 over my handicap but given that course, that wasn’t so bad." Its not going to get a crowd all fired up watching the pros struggle to make pars. But then again does it need to be? All the people that bought tickets for the Open are still going to go. All us golf nuts at home are still going to watch it on TV, even if no one breaks par. Its not going to be exciting, but I have to say that its definately going to be entertaining. The TV networks don’t care what people are feeling while watching… they just want them watching so we can catch all the commercials their sponsers pay so dearly for. I’m about a 5 handicap player, but that’s on my local public links. If I go to a course that has tight fairways and longer holes, requiring more use of my terribly underused long irons, and REAL trouble if I dip too far into the rough, my score goes up logrithmically. I’m going to ENJOY watching the pros struggle to make the same kind of scores that I normally shoot on my (comparitively) flat short wide open public golf course. I want to see how they handle the pressure. It gives the game a whole new perspective. Peace, Alex
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think there were a lot of the top scorers were saying it was too hard also. The point of saying it is too hard is the fact that more luck than good play and skill is needed to win. For example the fairways are very hard and narrow so even if you hit your shot right where you want it it could go anywhere. How can it possibly be unfair if its unfair to everyone? No one is going to give a rat’s behind if the winner of the Open shoots 10 under or 10 over, as long as he’s the low score. Golfers complaining about the conditions? Sure. The same guys that bitch about the course being unfair are the same guys that didn’t shoot good enough to make it to the leader board. The same was true of Pinehurst… the same was true of the Senior Open. The winners said "Yeah it was kinda tough but I managed" and some of the losers cried that the greens were too wavey and unfair. I say, "Tough! You’re a pro; there’s no one better capable to play a challenging course than you. All the other guys on the course have the same odds of screwing up as you so how can you possibly say its unfair? My 2 pesos, Alex Goepel
Response:
I’ve found a great site in Scotland for having a chat about The Open – its with the BBC and its on www.bbc.co.uk/talkscotland. Well worth a visit Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
Well, the good golfers have had their easy morning rounds now, and the picnic’s over. If there’s a good afternoon breeze the next few days, 7 over might win it by three strokes. -joseph – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – 1974, at Winged Foot. Hale Irwin’s winning score was 287.
Response:
It’s not as simple as higher scores. When pros say the course is unfair they mean that the penalties are too unpredictable! Everyone makes mistakes in a round. On a normal tour stop, a typical accuracy mistake may cost you 1 or 2 shots if you don’t recover. At the british open when you make a mistake, you could lose between 1 and 5+ shots on a single hole. There is too much variance. I think all the pros want are CONSISTENT conditions, it’s ok if the course is very hard. It needs to be setup as a consistent challenge. Here’s an analogy- imagine if the hoop in an NBA game randomly shot up to 12 ft every once and a while. The scores would be worse for everyone, but is it fair? No- it introduces an element of randomness that isn’t necessary. C
Response:
I love it! The open is way more interesting and I’m hooked. The best s seeing the human reaction of pro golfers who look like my regular golfing buddies frustrated from not getting the breaks. I realize that it sucks when you make a good shot and don’t get rewarded but it make for good veiwing. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – How can it possibly be unfair if its unfair to everyone? No one is going to give a rat’s behind if the winner of the Open shoots 10 under or 10 over, as long as he’s the low score. Golfers complaining about the conditions? Sure. The same guys that bitch about the course being unfair are the same guys that didn’t shoot good enough to make it to the leader board. The same was true of Pinehurst… the same was true of the Senior Open. The winners said "Yeah it was kinda tough but I managed" and some of the losers cried that the greens were too wavey and unfair. I say, "Tough! You’re a pro; there’s no one better capable to play a challenging course than you. All the other guys on the course have the same odds of screwing up as you so how can you possibly say its unfair? My 2 pesos, Alex Goepel
Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.
Response:
I believe the players are not whining about being challenged to the limit of their skills. I think they complain that the conditions are taking the ability to make decisions, whether accurate or inaccurate, completely out of their hands. Challenging golf is one thing… luck and unpredictability are another. When players are facing a 227 yd shot and trying to determine whether to hit a 8 or 9 iron and then end up regretting that they didn’t hit a wedge, you’ve added to much of the element of "guessing" to the game. When players are teeing off on a 250 yd par 3 and using 5 irons that are flying over the green on the carry, it’s not golf, it’s gambling. Someone yesterday, Ozaki I believe, hit a 300+ yd 5 iron on the 16th. You should absolutely challenge and test these guys to the limits of their physical and mental capabilities. For example, the past few years of the US Open have been great watching (though I do believe the courses were "tricked up" by the USGA). Par or +1 or -1 scores winning or incontention until the last hole. However, rough you can bail, 25+mph winds, 14 yd wide fairways that can add 80 yds of roll to any shot, incredible length and rock hard greens ALL IN COMBINATION is what I believe these guys are complaining about. Individually these things should be able to be coped with by the worlds best players… in fact they SHOULD even combine 2 or 3 of them, especially in Majors… but all together at once? Why should I have to decide as a player whether or not to hit a knock down 7 or 8 iron off a tee on a 450+ yard par 4, hitting a good shot down the middle to a 16yd wide fairway b/c I’m guessing the wind will push it 40 or 50yds further than normal and then have it hit a small undulation in the fairway, roll another 50 yds and then end up 10 yds into the hay? I don’t think this can be defended. If you think so, good for you, but every time you go out, you better be playing from the and tips without applying your handicap… In my mind, that would be about equal to what they are asking of my heroes this week. Cody
Response:
I’m going to ENJOY watching the pros struggle to make the same kind of scores that I normally shoot on my (comparitively) flat short wide open public golf course. I want to see how they handle the pressure. It gives the game a whole new perspective.
Too bloody right! A course is a course, hard or easy, and effects all the players equally. The ones that do well are going to be the ones who manage the particular course well, and play as creative as they need to. Same for a duffer on the public links. I, for one, am *GLAD* the R&A decided to make Carnoustie a *genuine* challenge. I also wonder which would be a tougher go for these pros, Carnoustie, or some well-used and abused, tight budget public course. 
Anybody should be able to do well on a course manicured out the wazoo, perfect greens, short rough, etc. But, I ask you, where is the *challenge* in that? Not suprisingly, the pros are whinging like spoiled brats because they *are* spoiled by playing under near perfect conditions the vast majority of the time. Todd
Response:
The same guys that bitch about the course being unfair are the same guys
that didn’t shoot good enough to make it to the leader board. Maybe you need to do more listening and watching and less talking and posting… Did you hear Normans comments? Last I saw he’s was tied for 3rd. That’s just off the top of my head, I’m sure there are others… Cody
Response:
In all case when a professional sport is played on natural terrain (like downhill skiing, offroad racing and so on) the professional *need* to play in the toughest environment. If you take the best skiers in the world and make them race on a "regular" downhill the winner will be always determined by pure luck (wind condition, sun and so on). If you make them race on very difficult slopes (like Kitzbuel in Switzerland) and, beside that, you place a lot of water on the snow so that there is a lot of ice only the best of the best will be able to win. And this is only fair. In golf is the same, if you take the best 10 players of the world and make them compete on a regular course (like the one you and I play each weekend) the winner will be the luckier of the 10. Trust me, professional players NEED the difficulties. In sports played with the same condition each time (basket, tennis, soccer) usually they’re provided by the people competing against you, in sports where you compete again the nature (beside again other people) you need the maximum difficulties the nature can give you. Greetings from Italy Massimo – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – From what I understand the R & A made Carnoustie significantly tougher than its been in the past. Fairways are cut too narrow and the rough has been fertilized to make it grow like a jungle. Bunkers deepened and greens keps hard and fast. Granted I CAN see a valid point in saying the golfers need
Response:
I like to see the course where important tournaments are played be set-up very tough. Except for filling the divots with sand, I liked how Olympic was set-up in 1998 and while there could have been more rough, Pinehurst played well also. The last few Opens have also been very tough set-ups. But a fair and tough set-up takes all of the conditions into account. It does not appear that this is true at Carnoustie. The course as it is now would be a very tough, but fair set-up if there was little or no wind. If the fairways were wider or at least softer, then it would be tough but fair even with the wind. But the combination of rock hard fairways, 10 yard wide landing areas, 12" plus rough and hard greens in 25 mph winds is too much. I have no problem with making the players be inventive. Make them play bump’n'run rather than target golf. I like bump’n'run, it takes more imagination. The problem is that this course isn’t set-up for bump’n'run, it is set-up for target golf. The even worse problem is that the fairways and greens are far too hard to play target golf. Players making good shots are being penalized because IRONS won’t stop in the fairways, let alone wood/metal clubs. And how about some of those greens? Making the green rock hard is OK, but on some of them there is no place to play a bump’n'run onto the green. I have to say that the R&A screwed to poch on this one. If it rains or the wind dies down they might salvage a decent Open out of it, but right now I would have to say that luck is more important than skill. And that is a sad thing to say about a major tournament, becuase the object is to determine the best golfer, not the luckiest one. — Good Golf Dan RSG Roll Call http://u1.netgate.net/~kirby34/rsg/driscolld.htm
Response:
Too bloody right! A course is a course, hard or easy, and effects all the players equally. The ones that do well are going to be the ones who manage the particular course well, and play as creative as they need to. Same for a duffer on the public links. I, for one, am *GLAD* the R&A decided to make Carnoustie a *genuine* challenge. I also wonder which would be a tougher go for these pros, Carnoustie, or some well-used and abused, tight budget public course. Anybody should be able to do well on a course manicured out the wazoo, perfect greens, short rough, etc. But, I ask you, where is the *challenge* in that? Not suprisingly, the pros are whinging
I’m sure I would find that course more than enough challenging… like spoiled brats because they *are* spoiled by playing under near perfect conditions the vast majority of the time.
I agree to that, but still the US Open and sometimes the British Open knee-jerk too far the other way. dsc – acssysdsc
Response:
I believe the players are not whining about being challenged to the limit of their skills. I think they complain that the conditions are taking the ability to make decisions, whether accurate or inaccurate, completely out of their hands. Challenging golf is one thing… luck and unpredictability are another. When players are facing a 227 yd shot and trying to determine whether to hit a 8 or 9 iron and then end up regretting that they didn’t hit a wedge, you’ve added to much of the element of "guessing" to the game. When players are teeing off on a 250 yd par 3 and using 5 irons that are flying over the green on the carry, it’s not golf, it’s gambling.
The game was born in these conditions, and it was called golf, not gambling. It isn’t guessing so much as it is feel. Have you ever played in a stiff wind and/or rain and had to figure out what to hit? That is what I would call feel. No frigging GPS crap in your cart is going to caddie and mollycoddle you then. Granted, the course is very tough, but much of it is traditional Scots links play. The R & A can’t set the wind
Response:
The game was born in these conditions, and it was called golf, not gambling. It isn’t guessing so much as it is feel. Have you ever played in a stiff wind and/or rain and had to figure out what to hit? That is what I would call feel. No frigging GPS crap in your cart is going to caddie and mollycoddle you then. Granted, the course is very tough, but much of it is traditional Scots links play. The R & A can’t set the wind
Oh your so right… therefore I digress. I think this is the only way golf should be played. In fact, if your not playing golf on strictly links courses that are all on the level with and as old as St Andrews, Muirfield, and Carnoustie why are you even playing? It’s amazing to me that the best golfers in the world wimp out and "go for the money" week after week in lesser circumstances, on "non-golf courses". Shouldn’t all golf really be played on links courses? What is this crap with "water" on the holes? And trees!!… oh the heresy of it all. Waste bunkers and "desert golf"… how dare these modern day assholes do this to "our" game! Mountain golf, resort golf… what gives them the chutzpah to call it golf at all. Where’s the ocean breeze? Wheres the old stone walls? Why do they dare wear microfiber and "cool max" instead of wool and twill? And since the argument among all you guys seems to be "traditions" what the hell are all those motorized things out on the course each evening? Where are the friggin’ sheep? Get rid of those damn graphite and steel shafts, it’s got to be hickory boys!! Two-piece? Wound? From now on, everyone plays the new Titleist feathery. C’mon, I mean after all, this is where golf was born. This is how golf was born. And another damn thing… what’s with changing the course… we didn’t have fancey brick walls around the Burn’s in 19th century and we sure as hell don’t need them now. Besides, holding to "traditionalism" requires us to return these flagsticks to their original locations, remove all added bunkers, and pur the teeing grounds back to there original length from the green. You can’t make a course 7300+ yds and cut fairways as wide as my car and say "it’s called golf" b/c that’s the way it was born. This course, as grand as it is, is nothing like originally designed, the locals and members would have slit their wrists. Cody
Response:
Thank you, Alex, for you express EXACTLY what I thought of hearing all the pro`s whine along … Geez ! Could you imagine what Garcia would`ve said if he had scored a 74 for example ? Suddenly the course would`nt have been unfair und Mom and Pop would`ve have been so proud of their son … Stop the whining for god`s sake !
I agree with you there that’s there’s nothing inherently "unfair" about the course, since everyone plays on the same field. But, I think it’s more of an ego thing that’s driving the griping. I mean, these guys are the best in the world and aren’t used to looking like hacks (although shooting an 81 for me wouldn’t be that bad… or even an 89..or 95, but that’s another story. I mean, how would the NBA players feel if the referees suddenly decided to raise the baskets by a foot or two during one of the games? The players would still look better than the average-joe. But, they’d definitely miss more shots, flub a couple dunks, etc. So, although the end result might not be terribly affected, the players would look bad while playing. I just read that Duval had a triple bogey in the back 9, which involved a whiff. Is the tour really out to embarass the players? Daly was just complaining about it a few weeks ago. For you old-timers out there, has there ever been so much complaining in the past? Frank —
Response:
It’s not as simple as higher scores. When pros say the course is unfair they mean that the penalties are too unpredictable! Everyone makes mistakes in a round. On a normal tour stop, a typical accuracy mistake may cost you 1 or 2 shots if you don’t recover. At the british open when you make a mistake, you could lose between 1 and 5+ shots on a single hole. There is too much variance. I think all the pros want are CONSISTENT conditions, it’s ok if the course is very hard. It needs to be setup as a consistent challenge. Here’s an analogy- imagine if the hoop in an NBA game randomly shot up to 12 ft every once and a while. The scores would be worse for everyone, but is it fair? No- it introduces an element of randomness that isn’t necessary.
Geez… we must be thinking on the same wave-length. Although my NBA analogy was more for the embarassment factor. :) Frank ps, what are the chances Jordan decides to join the Senior PGA? Read that he’s a 3-4 handicapper someplace on MSNBC. Are there any other ‘former’ athletes that went on to the seniors? Hale Irwin? —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Oh your so right… therefore I digress. I think this is the only way golf should be played. In fact, if your not playing golf on strictly links courses that are all on the level with and as old as St Andrews, Muirfield, and Carnoustie why are you even playing? It’s amazing to me that the best golfers in the world wimp out and "go for the money" week after week in lesser circumstances, on "non-golf courses". Shouldn’t all golf really be played on links courses? What is this crap with "water" on the holes? And trees!!… oh the heresy of it all. Waste bunkers and "desert golf"… how dare these modern day assholes do this to "our" game! Mountain golf, resort golf… what gives them the chutzpah to call it golf at all. Where’s the ocean breeze? Wheres the old stone walls? Why do they dare wear microfiber and "cool max" instead of wool and twill? And since the argument among all you guys seems to be "traditions" what the hell are all those motorized things out on the course each evening? Where are the friggin’ sheep? Get rid of those damn graphite and steel shafts, it’s got to be hickory boys!! Two-piece? Wound? From now on, everyone plays the new Titleist feathery. C’mon, I mean after all, this is where golf was born. This is how golf was born. And another damn thing… what’s with changing the course… we didn’t have fancey brick walls around the Burn’s in 19th century and we sure as hell don’t need them now. Besides, holding to "traditionalism" requires us to return these flagsticks to their original locations, remove all added bunkers, and pur the teeing grounds back to there original length from the green. You can’t make a course 7300+ yds and cut fairways as wide as my car and say "it’s called golf" b/c that’s the way it was born. This course, as grand as it is, is nothing like originally designed, the locals and members would have slit their wrists. Cody
The course is nothing like it wa originally designed? How so. Describe the changes over the years. I’m not saying Links golf is the only way to play, but that is how the British Open is played. I don’t know how you got the idea that that was what I was saying. Micorfibre and flagsticks have nothing to do with it, but when you play golf in Scotland at this time of year its different from the Masters, which is defferent from the U.S. Open …. and I guess there is something unique about the PGA championship. I just think it is an interesting, and much different test. Again, what exactly are those changes over the years?
Response:
ps, what are the chances Jordan decides to join the Senior PGA? Read that he’s a 3-4 handicapper someplace on MSNBC. Are there any other ‘former’ athletes that went on to the seniors? Hale Irwin?
I’ve heard Jordan isnt as hot as he holds himself out to be. Maybe a reverse sandbagger. And anyways, three or four is still a long way away from the tour. Incidentally, Chris Sabo, former Cincinatti Red is playing a little bit on the Canadian Tour this summer, which is fairly similar to the Nike Tour, maybe a touch below.
Response:
The course is nothing like it wa originally designed? How so. Describe the changes over the years…. Again, what exactly are those changes over the years?
I get the impression you don’t thin I know what I’m talking about. You didn’t really think I just made an assumption did you? tsk tsk, I always check my sources… OK, you asked, here are just a few… taken from the ESPN British Open website… (hell, I didn’t even dig…. imagine if I took the time to look at changes that didn’t happen in the last few years) Hole #4… rough between it and the 15th fairway grown deeper and thicker so that players are not afforded the option of playing their tee shot to the easier target of the 15th fairway instead of the fourth. Hole #5… Two NEW bunkers in the left rough put more emphasis on tee-shot accuracy at this pronounced left-to-right dogleg Hole #6… A slightly REPOSTITIONED tee and a NEW bunker now mean a carry in excess of 300 yards to find the fairway beyond the bunkers. Hole #9 … a large mound in the fairway was been REPLACED by a deep bunker… CONSIDERABLE RESHAPING has been carried out inmounds and hollows added to the bunkers, which guard the long green. Hole #11… requires pinpoint accuracy into the NEWLY RESHAPED green, which angles away amid humps, hollows and deep bunkers to offer a SLIMMER target. Hole #12… The vulnerable par 5 of earlier championships HAS BECOME A much tougher prospect as a PAR 4 As an aside, the 12th hole is 479 yds… The USGA (I know, not the R&A) defines a Par 5 as: "Par is the score that an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole. Par means errorless play without flukes and under ordinary playing conditions, allowing two strokes on the putting green."… and goes on to say that Par 5 distances for scratch golfers should be 471 yds to 590 yds. Carnoustie has four holes that are listed as par 4’s for the pro’s that are over 471yds. The yardage factor alone is not enough to make it a par 5, but with all the other conditions dilineated, it becomes a heavy weighing factor.) I think I can stop here. These are just a few of the changes made to the course over RECENT years… surely in the tradition of the game we should return to the days when golfer’s shot scores at The Open like they did in the 1890’s through the 1925 when only 7 of the 29 Open Championship’s played on UK soil yielded a 4 round total of under 300. Average score for 1890-1925 (when the open started it’s current 4 round play) was 305.55 or 76.4 per round. Now, I don’t know about you, but the thing I enjoy about watching professional athletics, or Olympic athletics is that these guys and gals can do things I can’t. Things the "normal" person playing the same game can’t. I don’t think golfer’s on The Tour should be able to end a tournament at -25 but I don’t think they should play to a -5 index either. Remember, par is based on what "an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole." Expert… hell, these guys (give or take a dozen) are the greatest golfers in the world. Should they be able to shoot a 267 like Norman did in ‘93? No… unless it just happens to be one of the most outstanding performances of all time… like Watson over Nicklaus in ‘77 or (gasp, I can’t believe I’m saying this) Tiger at Augusta in in ‘96. Big time performances, well outside the norm. I watch Major League Baseball because Pedro Martinez can throw a 95 mph fastball into a coffee can… I enjoy American Football because a 6′5", 298lb lineman can run still run a 4.9sec 40 meter sprint in full pads… I tune into World Cup Soccer because these guys AND GALS, can run, shove, push and kick for 2 straight hours and still thread a sudden death kick between two defenders, a goalie and the end post. And they can do all of this facing the best competition the world has to offer. I can’t do those things. No one I know can do those things. The same is true with golf. The pro’s would shred my local course like cabbage. So make it harder for them. Absolutely. I want to see them in extreme, but fair circumstances accomplish within the defined rules of the game "what an expert golfer would be expected to make for a given hole"…what I cannot do…. I don’t like to see them fall short of that just like I would. You can’t really sit and watch a tournament where the pro’s look like hacks and say to yourself "I wouldn’t do that"… no one would ever tell themself, "Hell, i’d probably quadruple or quintuple bogey that hole"… most of us think we can bogey an easy hole, or double bogey a difficult hole. I mean for cryin’ out loud, just take what is normally par to reach the green and two putt… easy. Now if that’s what you watch Tour golf for, that’s your right. If you like to see the pro’s made into "humans’, fine. I can’t argue your tastes or preferences and I shouldn’t, they’re what makes life grand. Like it or not, all you "this is where golf was born" people, golf is like anything else that was born. It’s grown.. it’s older… it’s got different friends and different goals. It continuse to evolve and move with the times, while still maintaining it’s concept of man/woman against the course. Even if your only talking about the birth of The Open Championship (Will, I’m talking to you since you chose to challenge me publicly) , it ain’t the same at 128 yrs old that it was at 1 year old. The game, the technology, the methods and yes loyalists, even the courses, have changed. Respectfully, Cody Shell
Response:
Alex, Being a gentleman, you will no doubt accept my sincere apology. In re-reading my post, my thoughts did not come across as intended and their tone sounds much harsher than I wished. For that let me apologize. Your email to me was private, but since my original post to you was public, let me apologize in public and private. I would enjoy the privelage of playing with you…I’d even make sure you won. Your reply does beg one question though… wouldn’t your reaction to my one reply be guilty of the same "cheap shot" as you implied mine was? How can you judge me off of one comment or post? I’m sure you too didn’t mean things as you stated. Have a nice weekend and if you get the chance, hit ‘em long and straight. Respectfully yours, Cody Shell