Ogilvy At Warwick Hills

Geoff Ogilvy talking to da medja at Warwick Hills:

Q. You guys are professional, you play all over the world in all kind of conditions, but how difficult is it to go from a golf course like Hoylake which is brown

GEOFF OGILVY: Total opposite to here?

Q. Total opposite to here.

GEOFF OGILVY: How much of a difference is that? It's harder to go from here to there than it is to go from there to here, because we play that once a year; we play this type of setup pretty much every week, you know, rough like this, just off the green.

I guess you just learn to adapt. I guess if all you'd ever done in your whole life was played a golf course around here and you went to this for one week, it would be completely bizarre. You grow up in Australia, Australians have to travel somewhere to play because Australia is on its own. It's a small country. You get to a point you have to go somewhere. So we are all used to traveling to different countries and playing different golf courses. That's the nature of doing that is you I think by the time you get good enough to be a professional golfer, you tend to play a lot of different types of golf and you learn to adapt week in, week out. The British Open, that's why a lot of players don't play the week before and will go over to Ireland and all that because it takes a while to get used to it again. But coming back from there to here, we play this type of setup so much that it's quite easy to get back into this.

Nice chance for any number of questions about Hoylake, PGA Tour setups, architecture, etc... uh no.

Q. You were talking about the field a little bit and how that makes it a bigger deal, a lot of the players say they don't pay attention to who else is here, but a field like this with Tiger and Vijay and Furyk and yourself does that make it a bigger deal? Do you get more fired up or is it a bigger deal to win?

TV Boost For Sustainable Golf?

From the R&A: 

TV BOOST FOR SUSTAINABLE GOLF 

The campaign by The R&A to promote sustainable golf courses worldwide received a major boost from the Open Championship at Royal Liverpool Golf Club, Hoylake – with television’s multi-million audiences a key factor.

For several years, the televising of major tournaments such as The Masters has led many club golfers to ask for “greener greens and fairways”, requiring the application of huge quantities of water and chemicals.  At this year’s Open, however, spectators watched one of the most successful championships ever, played out on dry, brown fairways which had not been watered at all during the long weeks of drought and record temperatures running up to The Open.

Hmmm...firing a little shot at their friends in Augusta! 

The excellence of Hoylake’s sustainable course led to many tributes: 

“I think it’s a fantastic test.  With the golf course being this fast, it lent itself to just amazing creativity.  This is the way – how it all started and how I think that it should be played.” Tiger Woods.

"I wish our fairways in the States were like this.  It’s nice, it’s golf, instead of trying to grip it and rip it.” Chris DiMarco. 

Agronomists and greenkeepers confirmed that Hoylake was a shining example of The R&A’s definition of the sustainable course: “Optimising the playing quality of the golf course in harmony with the conservation of its natural environment under economically sound and socially responsible management”. 

Robert Webb, Chairman of The R&A Golf Course Committee, which spearheads the drive for sustainable courses, said:  “We have had to work hard to get the message of best practice course management across to many amateur golfers and their club administrators, so The Open has helped our cause significantly.  People watching television coverage around the world – or on the course itself – must have heeded the message that best practice course management, with conservation of water, minimum use of pesticides and enhancement of the natural environment makes for more pleasurable golf and, at the same time, demonstrates greater social responsibility. 

“We’re thrilled with this boost to our work and like to think it will lead even more golfers to turn to our website, www.bestcourseforgolf.org which has already attracted registration from nearly 2,000 clubs worldwide”.

Did any of you know about the aforementioned website or the R&A "drive?"

Naturally, the hypocrisy here is breathtaking, yet predictable. The R&A is busy suggesting changes to rota courses, introducting costly changes to offset faulty golf ball regulation. They are surely aware of the liability issues and other costs making the everyday course less sustainable, all because of their complacency.

Golfdom Double Feature: Blogging and Bunkers

Now posted is my Golfdom feature on blogging and my July column on potential impact of the Muirfield Village bunker furrowing on the golf maintenance world. The column includes this plea:

"The game and expected conditions have simply gotten too expensive for the average facility to sustain, and bunker maintenance is a very expensive part of most budgets," Coldiron said. "Golfers expect what they see on TV tourneys on a daily basis."

Working with the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America staff and superintendents Kerry Satterwhite and Sandy Queen, Coldiron is attempting to develop a public golf forum at the Golf Industry Show next year that deals with ways to help public course superintendents who are bearing the brunt of a struggling game.

"Although Muirfield and the tour are doing this furrowing for different reasons, the return of bunker maintenance to a more reasonable level will help make the game more affordable in the long run," Coldiron says.

The group wants to address how the pressures of reduced revenue and increased cost have put undue pressure on many superintendents and their operations. But instead of beating a dead horse, Coldiron and friends want to offer insights, ideas and hopefully support to the unique situation faced by many public golf operations.

He would like your advice on topics and speakers who can lend ideas to struggling facilities. E-mail him at turfman@one.net

Dawson To Carnoustie: Get Brown

Mike Aitken writing in The Scotsman:

Carnoustie has been instructed by the Royal and Ancient to turn off the sprinklers and prepare a links for next summer's 136th Open championship which echoes the brown of Royal Liverpool rather than the lush greenery of Augusta.

Well aware the last Open held at the Angus course in 1999 was the most controversial of recent times - the test was so difficult the players dubbed the links "Carnasty" and Paul Lawrie's winning score of 290 was six over par - the R&A has also pledged to monitor the conditioning of the course over the next 12 months and ensure there is no repeat of the penal high rough which lined narrow fairways at the 128th Open.

At Hoylake yesterday morning, Peter Dawson, the chief executive of the Royal and Ancient, was asked if he shared the concerns of those who regard the presentation of the Angus links as the polar opposite of the fast, running course which hosted the most recent championship. Although it looked beautiful, Carnoustie was perhaps too verdant earlier in the season. It almost seemed as if the links had become a venue better suited to hosting the US Open, the pinnacle of narrow fairways and high rough, rather than the seaside game played on the ground at the Open.

Dawson replied: "Interestingly, we have had conversations with Carnoustie on exactly this point. They've turned the sprinklers off for us over the past few weeks and we're going there next week to see how brown it is.
 
"We think Carnoustie is a terrific venue, a great golf course which will put on another fantastic Open. But I must be honest and say we have a view that it could be a bit drier. Not that it's soft. It's just not as hard and fast as one would traditionally like to see."

And what's our favorite in-house architect for a governing body doing at Carnoustie?

Dawson also confirmed the changes at Carnoustie to the third, sixth and 17th holes. "We've worked on three holes. The third has been re-configured quite substantially. On the 17th, the right hand side of the driving zone has been mounded. At the last Open there that was a flat area covered by rough. Since the rough has been taken away and re-turfed, it didn't grow back very well. So we put in mounding. And the bunkering on Hogan's Alley has been adjusted."

I Don't Want To Spoil The Party...

My initial jubilation at Hoylake's successful rewarding of strategic play was tempered a bit after talking to a trusted observer. This chap knows the course well and despised the R&A's juggling of the closing holes.

And, like Tiger hinted, this observer felt that the over-the-top weekend hole locations were designed for one purpose: to keep scoring in check so that we would not notice that technology has rendered Hoylake irrelevant.

Me, being the eternal optimist, insisted that too many positives remain. Namely, that brown, firm golf on a well-designed course created an ideal model for tournament golf, especially since it rewarded such intelligent and measured play from Tiger.

But what if the R&A had made the hole locations a bit more accessible Saturday and Sunday, and Tiger wins at 24 under, with two other players around 20 under?

Would Ron Whitten be considered a prophet for declaring the course outdated?

I'm starting to think so, especially after reading this heartburn inducer from Alistair Tait of Golfweek. 

All the talk about scores reaching 20-under-par proved to be hot air. Sure the winning score was 18-under-par, just one stroke short of Woods' Open Championship record set at St. Andrews in 2000.

So what? The fact Woods emerged with the Jug proves the course passed the test. Had it been Joe Bloggs from anywhere or everywhere, then it would have been a different story.

So much for all the worry about the quirky nature of the golf course – the internal out of bounds, the three undulating greens that stuck out like old range balls in a bucket full of new Titleists.

Hoylake proved this week that it has enough natural defences to withstand the talents of the game's greatest players.

Course playing too short? No problem. Just tuck the pins.

That's what the R&A did this week. They put pins on the front of greens, had holes cut close to the side of greens so that a boldly struck putt could run off the greens.

See why I'm not feeling so good about this now.

Watson On Links Golf

Someone is obviously working on a story about links golf. Tom Watson after finishing 2-under for the first 36:

Q. Chris DiMarco was talking about the state of the course, and compared to the courses in the U.S., the courses in the U.S. are so soft; you can hit a driver and no way it's going to stop. And hit a wedge over here, you can't hit a driver?

TOM WATSON: You have to think on this golf course. You have to think where you want to put the ball. And there are certain holes where length really is important, length that I don't have. But there is a game plan that everybody has to have, that everybody uses on this golf course. The number one game plan, stay out of the bunkers.

Q. Do you think courses like this are the way to tackle the greater length that players are getting at?

TOM WATSON: Well, I think so, I do. I think to a degree. But if you're a little bit off on a golf course like this, it can eat you for lunch. You don't recover from the fairway bunkers. That's the leveler in this golf course, the bunkers.

Q. Chris was saying it's the first time in a long time he can remember hitting 3 wood off the tee. Normally on the PGA Tour he hits driver 14 times out.

TOM WATSON: This is different golf. This is a hard, firm golf course. That's the way The R&A would like it to be. When they had the greens like they had on Monday, we were really seeing some funny scores out there. They were tough on Monday. They decided to soften those greens up a little bit.

Q. Did the rain hurt you at all?

TOM WATSON: No.

DiMarco On Links Golf

After his impressive opening 36:

Q. In an ideal hypothetical annual schedule for you golfers, what would the ratio of these kind of courses to typical American courses be to your schedule?

CHRIS DiMARCO: I'd like to see more of these in the States, I really would. It's so much fun to play. I know TPC was meant to be played like this course, hard and fast, the ball running into the pine straw and into the trees and into some of those moguls they have out there, instead of the rough being seven inches and you just chop it out. Tampa plays a lot like that. Tampa is a great course, one of the favorites of all the players because of that. It's such an equalizer, because it doesn't favor the bombers if the fairways are hard and fast, because it makes the ball run into the trouble.

And when we're playing courses where the ball is hitting and literally your ball mark is a foot from your ball, it makes the fairways that much wider. And Vijay said it last year or year and a half ago, whatever, he said he has to hit it as far as he can on every hole because then he can hit a wedge on the green from the rough.

Until we do something about it, it's not going to make any difference. Until you have the balls go 20 yards off line, they might not hit drivers. For me, I was just telling Geoff today, Ogilvy, I said, it seems like it's been a long time since I ever hit a 3 wood off a par 4 tee. I feel like I hit 14 drivers, every round of golf we play, every course we play, because it seems every course we play it's 300 yards longer and the fairways are soft. And when you've got six par 4s over 470 with no roll, you have to hit driver.

Monty's Press Conference

From Monty's Q&A:

Q. A couple of the guys earlier today talked about the need for creativity and shot making here. I was just curious, the idea of that kind of being a lost art these days, particularly on the PGA TOUR in America.

COLIN MONTGOMERIE: I think it is. I think that is people say this course is dry and it's bouncy and everything, but that is part of golf. The ball does bounce into some places, and you've got to be able to control it and be patient. I think sometimes when you play in America that you hit the ball 157.6 yards and it scoots back 3.2 feet. This isn't like that. It's a more natural game and played on the ground.

And it will be interesting to see artistic shots more than you do possibly in the States. And I'm not saying that's right or wrong, it's just a different form of golf. And we have a different form here, especially with the weather as it is and it's forecast to be the way it is right now.

Ogilvy's Press Conference

Forgive if you read this already, but ASAP was slow to post this and since this is my very own clipping library, I have to put these things up! Plus, he has some more interesting things to say.

STEWART McDOUGALL: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Geoff Ogilvy, thanks for coming across, early in the morning, half past 8:00.

You won the U.S. Open at Winged Foot. Tell us how you find the course here compared to the one at Winged Foot.

GEOFF OGILVY: Well, it's about as different as you can get, I guess. It's a little bit wider off the tee, which is nice. It's a lot firmer, it's probably the firmest links course we've played in a long time. And they've only been running 30 yards, and these are 60 yards. It's perfect, which is the way it should be.

The rough is playable. If you hit it in the bunkers, you're going to be in that's a chip out in most cases, but the rough you have to be able to play from. So in some cases you're laying back with really, really short clubs, just to make sure you don't run out to the bunkers, to give yourself longer second shots, but it's better than being in the bunkers, so it's a fun course.

Q. This course has numerous places where there's out of bounds. Could you talk about how much that affects you and how you play this golf course? And also, could you talk about specifically the 18th hole and if that's as hard as it looks with that out of bounds so far on the right?

GEOFF OGILVY: Out of bounds, the two obviously would be the 3rd and the 18th. The 3rd you have to be cautious, because it's draining so much to the left, so it's probably more a play on the second shot, because you're going to have quite a long second shot in sometimes.

18 is a strange it's a funny kind of tee shot, especially if the wind is pushing it that direction, as well. It's the bunkers that you can't really carry. Yesterday you couldn't carry on the left, so you've really got to start it up the middle and it's quite a weird tee shot. It's one of the strangest holes I've seen but actually quite fun to play, I think. It's a fun hole.

We don't have out of bounds on the last hole on many golf courses. It's going to be interesting. I don't know, I've never really played them much. But it's not like last year at St. Andrews, you can poke it down there somewhere, you have to on the second shot, as well. I mean, it's in play with the second shot. Same with the third and 18th, out of bounds is in play, which is interesting. It's funny, somebody could come back with a 3 on the last or an 8 on the last, which is what you want, I guess, at the end of a tournament.

Q. Would you have thought the U.S. Open would have been your first?

GEOFF OGILVY: I thought the U.S. Open would be my last. Everyone has asked me, I don't know why. For my reasoning it didn't make sense. My reasoning is because I don't drive the ball very straight; that's probably the weakest attribute. But the more you play U.S. Opens, the more you realize that nobody hits fairways. Strikers are missing fairways, so people that hit it a bit wide have probably an advantage, because they're used to playing out of the rough. It's just that narrow.

If you look at the guys up there, Monty is a straight driver, but Phil doesn't hit it very straight. I don't hit it very straight. There's a good cross section of people. It doesn't seem to be only strikers that don't do it well. Maybe my reasoning was wrong, but that's the one I would have picked last. This one is the one I would pick first, because there's a large percentage of the field here that doesn't play or hasn't played much links golf. I always said I have played more than a lot of guys.

Spontaneity

After Phil Mickelson's comments last week about knowing in advance what clubs he would be using off of tees, I tried to raise the question of whether this is a sign of the times, or a statement about course setup and design.

And as interesting as it was to read the Phil-hitting-driver-on-18-debate, I'm still curious what you think of the notion of "spontaneity" in course setup.

Is it a better test of a player's skill if they are forced to adapt to either via (A) weather conditions or (B) radical day-to-day changes in tee/hole location placement?

Obviously, by the leading nature of that question, I think we see true skill when players are asked to adapt and execute shots "on the spot."

When a player is made uncomfortable by an unexpected decision (as opposed to a 25-yard sliver of fairway), and overcomes that doubt to pull off a shot, again I think we find out who the better all-around player is.

So if they are asked to hit 3-iron on a hole for two days before surprisingly finding a tee up with a 7-iron the shot to a difficult hole location, it would seem that such a departure genuinely would tell us who can "hit all of the clubs in the bag."

Do you agree that spontaneity in course setup is a good thing, or would you view it as a form of trickery trying too hard to match the unpredictability of links golf (and that can only be created without a backlash by Mother Nature)?

Bubba Talks

Thanks to reader Barry for this Jason Sobel Q&A with Bubba Watson.

Q: Would you be in favor of ever rolling back the golf ball to make courses more playable?

A: The sad thing about that is, there's a lot of great ideas out there, but the problem is, if you roll back the golf ball, you're still going to have the longest hitter and you're still going to have the shortest hitter. And there's nothing you can do about that. There's going to be a longer and shorter hitter, no matter if you all use the same clubs. There's always going to be a shortest and a longest, so it's not really going to affect anything.

As you can see, he's given the issue much thought and consideration. Reminds you of Ogilvy doesn't he?

Q: Do you think some courses are becoming obsolete now that players are hitting wedge into every hole?

A: There's a lot of great golf courses that we play that are tough and they're old golf courses. You think about the U.S. Open. All they did this year was add rough and the greens are fast. It wasn't tricked out, it wasn't sloped too much; it was just tough. Westchester is just tough, and Colonial -- a lot of the older courses are just tough and you didn't have to add any yardage, you didn't have to do anything. If you've got rough, some overhanging trees, it's a tough golf course.

All they did was out rough and the greens aren't fast, and it wasn't tricked out. I guess it hasn't occurred to Bubba that rough and fast greens are forms of trickery?  

The Hazing at Winged Foot

My latest Golfobserver.com column is now posted.

Finchem On Furrowed Bunkers

I'm fascinated by the part about the it not being interesting for spectators if the guys are getting up and down a lot...

Q. We haven't had a chance to talk to you since what happened with the Memorial with the bunkers. What were your feelings? How do you think the test case worked out? Is there anything that you regret in regards to most specifically maybe not notifying the players beforehand?

COMMISSIONER FINCHEM: I think if you just stand back and look it from a strictly competitive standpoint, it's hard to argue with our team, our officials, who feel strongly on this point, Nicklaus and his people, who feel strongly on this point, which is that bunkers are hazards, and you play the ball as it lies. (Indiscernible) competitively play the hazard. There was a growing sentiment, I guess, that this may be fueled by (indiscernible) over the last 12 years, but there's a growing sentiment that bunker play has become too routine.

I hear it on two levels: one is that it's not competitively challenging enough, and number two, it's not interesting enough to the spectator if guys are getting up and down a lot. The problem with that thinking a little bit is, however, that they'll always get up and down.

If you stand back and look at Memorial, 2005, players got up and down I think 47% of the time on greenside bunkers. This year they got up and down 42% of the time. It's not a huge falloff.

It seems to me it's a different issue in the fairway bunkers. How you want the fairway bunkers to play in my mind is a different issue than the greenside bunkers.

This is all I think healthy, positive for the game, to have this discussion, to have this focus on variety in setting up a golf course, including raking of the bunkers. I think it's fair game. I think a lot of players feel that way.

Now, having said that, I was not comfortable in hindsight about the way we went about it. I think if we're going along with a certain philosophy for a certain number of years, it's only reasonable to inform the players in advance if you're going to make some major shift in that philosophy, allow them to take the steps, whether mentally or physically, in terms of practice or getting their heads together in terms of how to play.

Now, if there was one isolated thing, it might be one thing. But we have a pattern of setups. I think you need to tell the players. If we were coming to Avenel this week and we put every tee back 50 yards, I think we should tell the players that was happening. I think that's not unreasonable. I don't think there's anything unhealthy about having our players involved in discussions to that point. Not that they make the call, our rules team makes the call in most instances.

I don't have any problem with the application, the process. I think we should be a little bit more careful. Bottom line is, I think it was a reasonable, healthy exercise that stimulates discussion and focus on different parts of setup philosophy that can contribute to challenges that are good for the competition and also interesting to the spectators.

Kostis: Leave The Courses Alone

Peter Kostis is mad as hell and can't take the bastardization of courses via extreme setups anymore. Seriously! Here's a great rant from Kostis on Winged Foot's ridiculous lack of width.

Let these classic golf courses stand, as designed, and let these players play. Sure, grow some rough—just not the same amount for every hole. Sure, narrow the fairways—just not all of them the same way regardless of the hole's design.

"We don't want it to be a lay-down course"

Gary Baines looks at the technology debate and talks to the tournament director at The International, who has some interesting things to say.

Winged Foot, a course dating back to 1923, proved anything but obsolete. It played plenty long (7,264 yards for a par-70 layout), but it was obvious that wasn't the main reason that the Open produced its highest score relative to par (5 over) since 1974.

Instead, the key to protecting par was narrowing the fairways and growing the rough so that the long bombers on tour have to think twice before ripping a driver as hard as possible on every hole over 300 yards. Winged Foot did that with many fairways 25-28 yards wide and rough as deep as 51/2 inches.

Oh yes, you can see where this is going.

Larry Thiel, executive director for the International tournament in Castle Rock, was at Winged Foot during U.S. Open week and liked what he saw in the way of a course set-up for the Open.

"I thought the set-up was fair," Thiel said. "You don't have to have 7,800-yard golf courses. The rough is supposed to be penal, and I don't think it was overly penal. If you can't drive the ball straight into a 30-35-yard-wide opening, you ought to do something to your game, downsizing your club until you can."

Of course that was the U.S. Open, a once a year event designed to be a unique test. The International, with its Stableford scoring meant to elicit heroic play, would never look to Winged Foot for inspiration, would it?

They don't want to see the players always swing as hard as they can from tees on par-4s and par-5s because the reward is so great and there isn't a big downside.

That's why even at Castle Pines the fairways have been narrowed over the years. That's undoubtedly part of the reason the winning scores at the International have come down in the last couple of years. After cumulative winning totals of at least 44 points in every year but one from 1997 through 2003, the winning numbers have been 31 and 32 the last two summers. Other things that have factored in are additional water hazards and the lengthening of the par-5 eighth hole.

As Thiel said several years ago, "We don't want it to be a lay-down course."

No, because God know, the ratings aren't low enough yet. We've got to get them into the NHL's league before we can rest  assured.

On many courses on the PGA Tour, players "can stand on the tee and whale on it," Thiel said this week. "We're guilty of it too. The players aren't penalized for errant shots. What you think is a monstrous hole is far from a monstrous hole for these guys."

Thiel estimates the fairways at Castle Pines are mostly 30-50 yards wide, which is generous but not as wide as they used to be.

"We've gradually worked them in," Thiel said.

Oh good! 

"We're always thinking about what makes the course more competitive and fair. We're trying to neutralize guys just stepping back and going at it as hard as they can without any fear."

Because the game is just so easy for those flat belly Tour boys! And then Thiel offers this from William Flynn:

"He believed a good shot should be rewarded and a bad shot penalized," Thiel said. "It's a pretty simple formula."

You know...eh forget it.