"Treat it as a par-5. I don’t see it as an issue."
I understand that the R&A headman and part-time golf architect will be busy Saturday with the intense storm that Kevin Eason predicts should be epic, but something is just a bit off in his rather haughty defense of the long tee shot carries and unreachable par-4s.
You may recall that the morning players Thursday noted (well, loudly complained) about the unreachable nature and tough carries on three par-4s. Now, in his defense, I can understand and even agree with Peter Dawson's response, covered here by Steve Elling:
Others specifically singled out par-4 hole Nos. 6, 11 and 16, which were playing into the wind. As for the sixth, Dawson shrugged.
"Six is 499 into the wind," he said. "It was a par-5 today, clearly. Treat it as a par-5. I don’t see it as an issue."
And he later said...
"There's nothing wrong with the course," he said.
Here's the twist. The extremes only work one way for Dawson and the R&A, who are clearly obsessed with scoring.
He says treat the sixth hole as a par-5 when it's playing into an extreme wind. Fine, he's right.
But why can't things swing the other way and be chalked up to seaside golf?
Why can't a par-5 play "easy" downwind just be treated as a par-4 by the R&A? After all, the 17th was determined to need "stiffening" and a new green constructed expressly for this championship because it played like a par-4 last time around.
What was wrong with the old one? Why it yielded too many birdies!
So an excess of bogies and double bogies appears to be fine with the R&A. But an excess of birdies or eagles? Fire up the dozers!
Friday, July 18, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Reader Comments (8)
If the forecast for the weekend were suddenly for "calm and sunny" would you then be supportive of par being set at 70 for the 3rd and 4th rounds?
Or would the scribes decry such a move as contrived and manipulative?
Oh well, someone will have the fewest strokes and will take away the jug regardless of whether the sum of those strokes is above or below 280, 288, or 317.
My point is, the fewest strokes to win concept is their backup when scores are high, but when they go low, something is deemed wrong with that and changes are made. Why is that?
Anyway, John Daly shot 49 on the back nine today to post a +29 total. Is there any way to nullify the ´95 Open, or how about adding a clause to the "past champions excempt until the age of 65"-rule that you mustn't have won with a mullet (which, by the way, was heavily outdated even then)?
If so, that's not just 'nominal' par going up a stroke.
I don't mind a long par 4 playing as a par 5 into the wind; however, I find it "wrong" to set up the hole so professionals golfers cannot reach the fairway with a well struck ball. Watching them chop their 2nd shot from the rough, short of the fairway, doesn't seem like a good test of golf.
Chopping and gouging isn't fund to watch.
The R&A didn't make the 17th harder to reach. It made the 17th a decision as to whether or not JUST reaching the hole in two was desirable given the far more interesting green that Hawtree built. The 17th is far better hole now than previously not because it yields less birdies (I don't know if it does or not), but because it is strategically more interesting. I think Hoylake proved that the R&A doesn't mind scores going low so long as there are interesting and thoughtful shots to be struck along the way.