Lurking dangerously at 11-under despite a first hole double bogey, Geoff Ogilvy was asked about the scoring and setup.
Q. How would you compare the difficulty of this course compared to Winged Foot? And, secondly, given the numbers that people are throwing up there today, is it possible to feel sorry for a golf course given these conditions?
GEOFF OGILVY: I don't think so. I mean, no. I don't think good scores should be I don't think the quality of the golf course should be related to score at all, to be honest with you. I mean, fairly widely known that St. Andrews is one of the best golf courses in the world and they tear that up every time they go and everyone loves playing it.
This is the setup has got so much to do with it. If you had greens as firm as Winged Foot were and rough like Winged Foot was and as narrow as Winged Foot was, there would not be many people under par. If you had Winged Foot as soft as this, we would not be going as low as this but people would have been under par. So much has to do with how firm the greens are and how long the rough is and how narrow the fairways are. Winged Foot, the fairways are very narrow and the ball was bouncing in them so they played a lot narrower as well.
But Winged Foot has some scary greens with slopes and stuff, probably scarier than here, if both were setup identically, which they couldn't be, but Winged Foot was still playing harder. This is still a pretty stellar test. If you had the rough up more, firm greens, it would be pretty hard.
But I like it this way. I think people are having fun watching it and the players are having fun playing it. It's pretty good fun to go out there and have birdies all week in a major. I don't think the quality of the golf course should be judged by the scores we shoot. I think sometimes if we shoot good scores, it should be, hey, that's a good golf course, look how much fun they are having out there, you know. That's the point, isn't it?