News and Notes on No. 2

As we catch our breath in the interregnum between the Opens, let's see if folks enjoyed what they saw last weekend:

About Those Greens:  Like politics, religion and sex, there's nobody that doesn't have strong feelings about the greens on Pinehurst No. 2.  You either love them or hate them, or perhaps like your humble blogger feel strongly both ways.

In this post from yesterday, we excerpted Brad Klein's comments about the greens, in which he referenced Johnny Miller's comments from the Sunday broadcast to the effect that they're too extreme and too much of the story.  I'm guessing that after a week on site, that our Shackelofrd might have a thought about the greens:

The takeaways are as I hoped and feared: gradual widespread embrace of brown and the

sandy scrub, with expected dissenters, and fairly widespread desire to see some of Pinehurst's turtleback greens deflated. The issue is not so much that any of the prime candidates is unable to function at a rational speed, but instead the totality of the course. There's a relentlessness to the crowned greens that just takes a little away from the beauty of Donald Ross's design. (By no means do I know this course like many others, but after walking it for four days the first, second, sixth, ninth, and fifteenth greens could see the tire pressure reduced and Pinehurst No. 2 would be better for it.)

Shack also links to Joh  Hawkins, who feels the same (don't mean to imply that he has his finger on the scale, as he also quotes from Klein):

Amid the Donald’s transparent motive, everyone seemed to miss the real issue. Pinehurst’s domed greens are too severe for today’s well-into-the-teens green speeds. Too many well-struck iron shots landed harmlessly on a putting surface but wound up in punitive spots, victimized by the severe runoff that sent some balls beyond the vast “chipping areas.” 

Hit it thin? You deserve what you get. Common sense must prevail, however, and the fact of the matter is, original designer Donald Ross never woke up one morning to find his precious babies rolling at 15 on the Stimp, or even 11. Crenshaw and Coore were reluctant to mess with Ross’ fabled greens, a decision that proved long on respect and short on logic.

There's no right or wrong answer on this, as it's a high-wire act.  This from Hawkins is probably the best arguments for the "deflators":

Sure, the ball runs off at Augusta National, but 20-footers become 50-footers, not full-blown sand blasts from 40 yards. There are some clearly defined false fronts at the home of the Masters, at Shinnecock Hills and other major sites, for that matter, but those are strategic components with a rational purpose.

Other Course Comments -  Good friend Glenn (who may actually be reading the blog, guess we'll find out with this) continues to long for his deep Bermuda rough, seemingly unaffected by the higher weekend scoring.  Shack also fills us in the statistical measure of the difference:

According to the USGA’s “cost of rough” stat measuring the gap in scoring between players who hit fairways and those who miss, the final number was .286 strokes. In 1999 the cost of rough was .303, and .368 in 2005.

No one was happy with the 2005 set-up, so I'd focus on the 1999 numbers.  I'm guessing there'd be some kind of general improvement over 15 years in any event, if only because the second shots are shorter these days.  More importantly, had the weeks leading up to the Open not been so dry, the wire plants and other vegetation would have been lusher, and the "cost of rough" somewhat higher.   

But the most exciting shot in golf is the recovery shot, one in which great success and utter failure are equally possible outcomes.  That drama is simply not there with deep Bermuda, especially in view of the challenges at and around the greens.

Shack also thinks the men did a pretty good job of, shall we say, leaving the seat down for the ladies:

The real stunner after week one of the U.S. Open(s) is how good the putting surfaces look heading into week two. The health after a week of preparations is astounding, and a huge credit to the Pinehurst maintenance gurus. As I said on Morning Drive, the only blemishes are poorly replaced ballmarks by the men who don't know how to repair one.

I saw little of the divoting issue that was anticipated, in part because of shrewd course setup variance of landing areas, firm conditions and respect forPinehurst No. 2 shown by players in practice rounds. Yes, it's going to be brown and dry with high heat this week, and no I don't think the course will be kind to the women, but for now let's look at the big picture coverage.

Brad Klein agrees:

Jessica Korda and Michelle Wie, with the USGA's Mike Davis.

Having attended more than 20 U.S. Opens, I've not seen a course in better shape “the morning after” than Pinehurst No. 2 first thing this morning. By way of comparison, consider Monday at Shinnecock Hills in 2004 on the heels of the Sunday massacre when the greens went over the edge. The course was so rock hard that I broke 18 tees when afforded the chance to play that day. On the first green, it was time to switch to a metal ball marker after snapping a plastic one.

Early fears of heavily divoted U.S. Open fairways at Pinehurst No. 2 turned out to be unwarranted. The sandy surfaces with their Bermudagrass cover withstood the first week well. The main landing areas were in excellent shape for the women starting their practice rounds for the U.S. Women’s Open.

OK, ladies, no excuse not to put on a great show for us.