It would be interesting to see what John Riegger has got to say about this as he is one of the more qualified to answer.
I had lunch today with John in Atlanta -- he stayed over after his great closing 66 yesterday and solo 9th place finish at Jennings Mill -- and talked with him tonight by phone in Richmond. I told him about the thread, and he told me he played the course in its Open set-up last fall. He remarked how Johnny Miller's 63 in 1973 was one of the great rounds of all time and predicted that, if things stay the way they are now, the winning score in this year's U.S. Open would be +5.
He said that the USGA purpose behind the 288-yard par 3 (he said it can play to 305!) was that they wanted a "true fairway wood" test. And they also wanted a true 3-shot par 5...which they apparently have achieved by lengthening the 12th -- already the toughest par 5 on the course -- to 700+ yards.
I had lunch today with John in Atlanta -- he stayed over after his great closing 66 yesterday and solo 9th place finish at Jennings Mill -- and talked with him tonight by phone in Richmond. I told him about the thread, and he told me he played the course in its Open set-up last fall. He remarked how Johnny Miller's 63 in 1973 was one of the great rounds of all time and predicted that, if things stay the way they are now, the winning score in this year's U.S. Open would be +5.
He said that the USGA purpose behind the 288-yard par 3 (he said it can play to 305!) was that they wanted a "true fairway wood" test. And they also wanted a true 3-shot par 5...which they apparently have achieved by lengthening the 12th -- already the toughest par 5 on the course -- to 700+ yards.
I understand the true fairway wood test part; it makes sense. But 288 is a bit long for a fairway wood shot for a lot of the pros, unless it's downhill. Isn't the average driving distance on tour like 289?
In some respects, what is the difference if there is a 400 yard par 3? All the players that complained about Carnoustie were basically out of the tournament before it started. If your mind is too weak to handle the challenge then don't enter. It's the FREAKING US OPEN, I think it should reward the most mentally tough player. If you look at some of the most difficult US Open venues you find some of the most mentally tough players in history, as it should be!
Great shots should be rewarded and mediocre shots punished.
__________________
"In my experience, if you stay with the essentials you WILL build a repeatable swing undoubtedly. If you can master the Imperatives you have a champion" (Vikram).
The reason you can't sustain the lag is because you are so eager to make the club move fast (a reaction to the intent of "hitting it far"). So on a full shot you throw it away too early, which doesn't happen for your short chip. (bts)
I am pretty sure there are a few sub-300 yards par 4's on tour. Does not matter much if they start saying that all those are par 3's.
ZJ won the Masters by lay up on all par 5's. A layup of 200 yards on a 288 yard par 3 sounds like a pretty good idea.
I haven't seen how the hole is designed... If it required a 270 yards carry over water it'll be a huge factor, but if it is more of the opposite I do not think it'll be a factor at all.
Will look out for it.
__________________
When James Durham recorded 94 at the Old Course at St Andrews in 1767, he set a course record that lasted 86 years. Golf: A curious sport whose object is to put a very small ball in a very small hole with implements ill desiged for the purpose - Sir Winston Churchill
There are a couple short holes on this course, also. #2 is 340 yards and #17 is 313 yards - very short by today's standards. I expect we'll see several players try to drive those greens.
There are a couple short holes on this course, also. #2 is 340 yards and #17 is 313 yards - very short by today's standards. I expect we'll see several players try to drive those greens.
I TAKE IT ALL BACK- that hole looks easy!
Seriously,I bet it is played from the blue tees if there is any doubt the short guys can't make it.
Maybe the logic is that the short par 4's will "balance "the scores.
Thanks for the pics Ben
__________________
neil k
Last edited by neil : 04-24-2007 at 07:27 PM.
Reason: gratuity
There are a couple short holes on this course, also. #2 is 340 yards and #17 is 313 yards - very short by today's standards. I expect we'll see several players try to drive those greens.
Thanks for the link, bam. I have to say that I really like the design. I guess any pro will be able to carry the bunker, but the additional req that the shot have to be on target to avoid the same bunker left or any bunker right is a great feature.
As the green is said to be not very undulated: If the pin or wind is not too severe I expect to see a few birdies, 25% bogeys, a majority of pars, but not many double bogeys or "other".
I need a link to a bookie who has the odds.
__________________
When James Durham recorded 94 at the Old Course at St Andrews in 1767, he set a course record that lasted 86 years. Golf: A curious sport whose object is to put a very small ball in a very small hole with implements ill desiged for the purpose - Sir Winston Churchill
.....let Brian's accuracy with the driver off the tee rule the day. 
Hybrid Mode
