The Open...No Bomb & Gouge …..

No bomb & gouge here....the rough and the bunkers are true penalties.....should more course be setup like this?

Everything in moderation, including moderation.

> @getair23 said:

> Everything in moderation, including moderation.

I know. you'd need a lot of spotters....LOL!

I'm probably in the minority, but I would not enjoy playing a course that beats me up every time I play. If RP had really severe greens, it would be nearly unplayable for just-a-guy type players.

the course doesn't beat you up if you don't hit it into the thick stuff ... yes, more courses for the pros need more penal rough/bunkering ... fairway bunkers are a joke on tour ...

I prefer unpredictable lies in the rough a la Pinehurst #2 and #4. You hit it in there you take your chances.

If you burn out and dry out the rough, like they can usually do on links courses in summer, then you get those unpredictable lies that might hamper getting the ball out or create a hot, hot flier.

> @farmer said:

> I'm probably in the minority, but I would not enjoy playing a course that beats me up every time I play. If RP had really severe greens, it would be nearly unplayable for just-a-guy type players.

Imagine if they narrowed the fairways and added more internal out of bounds....whew!

Good shots=reward.....bad shots=penalties. As it should be.

You have to buy in to this type of set up as a whole. You can’t have water hazards everywhere leading to hard, 13 stimp greens with dead elephants buried in shallow graves with no avenues to chase the ball onto the green like we have designed in almost all other parts of the world. This type of rough requires few/no trees, can’t have forced carries and greens can’t be concrete or fast. I’m all for it, I’ve mentioned many times that I’d like to see more of a penalty for being off the fairway, but you can’t just take the courses we have and grow foot long, thick tough. That’s just a lazy way to protect par instead of designing and maintaining a course that compels players to play an earthly game. They can wail away if they choose, and if sharp on all fronts they can go low here. On a TPC network style layout they can go low if putting well and hitting it long. Little else matters.

For the pros - yes for some events. As a 16 HCP I would not play a course set up like RP for the Open which would destroy me.

> @golfandfishing said:

> You have to buy in to this type of set up as a whole. You can’t have water hazards everywhere leading to hard, 13 stimp greens with dead elephants buried in shallow graves with no avenues to chase the ball onto the green like we have designed in almost all other parts of the world. This type of rough requires few/no trees, can’t have forced carries and greens can’t be concrete or fast. I’m all for it, I’ve mentioned many times that I’d like to see more of a penalty for being off the fairway, but you can’t just take the courses we have and grow foot long, thick tough. That’s just a lazy way to protect par instead of designing and maintaining a course that compels players to play an earthly game. They can wail away if they choose, and if sharp on all fronts they can go low here. On a TPC network style layout they can go low if putting well and hitting it long. Little else matters.

Agreed, plus you have to consider the weather.....Like one poster stated, moderation. I don't think that you can play that course with rock hard greens.

The golf that I have seen today and the last couple of weeks on the Euro Tour has been more enjoyable to watch than the entire season elsewhere. Obviously, it all comes down to money but for my money, the product has been infinitely better.

> @MattyO1984 said:

> The golf that I have seen today and the last couple of weeks on the Euro Tour has been more enjoyable to watch than the entire season elsewhere. Obviously, it all comes down to money but for my money, the product has been infinitely better.

Imagine how much you would have liked it had there been any wind in Ireland and Scotland.

> @farmer said:

> I'm probably in the minority, but I would not enjoy playing a course that beats me up every time I play. If RP had really severe greens, it would be nearly unplayable for just-a-guy type players.

RP is seriously tough. I played it last fall and shot 93 (after ESC!!!) off a 4 handicap. The wind was howling and missing fairways or green was VERY costly to your score as it often resulted in a lost ball as we did not have spotters.

I would love to play it again in more friendly weather and see if I could break 80, but on that day the course was way more challenge than I had game.

Golf as it should be played...not the artificial guff that the PGA Tour peddles.

So much more enjoyable to watch and to play...for all levels of golfer.

> @2bGood said:

> > @farmer said:

> > I'm probably in the minority, but I would not enjoy playing a course that beats me up every time I play. If RP had really severe greens, it would be nearly unplayable for just-a-guy type players.

>

> RP is seriously tough. I played it last fall and shot 93 (after ESC!!!) off a 4 handicap. The wind was howling and missing fairways or green was VERY costly to your score as it often resulted in a lost ball as we did not have spotters.

>

> I would love to play it again in more friendly weather and see if I could break 80, but on that day the course was way more challenge than I had game.

>

>

Now that is tough, which makes my point. I would need to play forward tees, but even from that length, I just can't see the fun.

I'm seeing bomb and gouge out there. The balls just goes so far now. There's no changing it unless it's rolled back. This is a great course and will be a great finish. Looking forward to it.

Yes, to the OP. The Open is my #1 favorite tournament. I like that kind of golf as it makes Pros work for each hole score, and especially watching them take a dingy stroke bath like Duval with a sweet 14. Always amazed how mentally lazy people get. Knowing its a two-stroke penalty, it still takes too much effort to check to ensure the ball you're looking at is, in fact, yours, plus the other stroke errors. I saw someone I was playing with twice hit the wrong ball last week. You have to wonder other than dismal fog and lack of self-control, what the heck goes through that mind.

Why do people say this kind of golf is natural? Sky ran a segment on architect Martin Ebert, mentioning his renovations to the course. They showed a gigantic earth mover forming artificial mounds somewhere on one of his redesigned holes. Not natural, sorry! Then there's all the internal OB which is just garbage and not natural at all.

I'm usually not a big fan of the British Open layouts. I don't think it necessarily takes more skill to play along the ground. But this one looks pretty cool. It actually has some elevation changes, etc., probably becuase it's been redesigned recently.

> @NoodleSalad said:

> Why do people say this kind of golf is natural? Sky ran a segment on architect Martin Ebert, mentioning his renovations to the course. They showed a gigantic earth mover forming artificial mounds somewhere on one of his redesigned holes. Not natural, sorry! Then there's all the internal OB which is just garbage and not natural at all.

Sky also ran a segment during one of the PGA Tour events last year...can’t remember which one, they all seem to be one big tournament to me...where they looked at one hole where Justin Thomas hit drives on 2 consecutive days that finished 290 yards apart...one straight left, one straight right (no wind to speak of) and he still made par 4. The commentators called it miraculous...not really, he had great lies on both occasions even though he was so far offline and a massive green to aim at. That’s not golf. Golf is supposed to test all facets of the game...not just give rewards for length off the tee. The PGA Tour has sold its soul to the devil of distance and has become a complete borefest as a result.

> @farmer said:

> > @2bGood said:

> > > @farmer said:

> > > I'm probably in the minority, but I would not enjoy playing a course that beats me up every time I play. If RP had really severe greens, it would be nearly unplayable for just-a-guy type players.

> >

> > RP is seriously tough. I played it last fall and shot 93 (after ESC!!!) off a 4 handicap. The wind was howling and missing fairways or green was VERY costly to your score as it often resulted in a lost ball as we did not have spotters.

> >

> > I would love to play it again in more friendly weather and see if I could break 80, but on that day the course was way more challenge than I had game.

> >

> >

>

> Now that is tough, which makes my point. I would need to play forward tees, but even from that length, I just can't see the fun.

I don’t get this thing about forward tees. Typically in the UK you have 2 sets of tees for men (daily play and competition tees) and a set of ladies tees. Some courses may have junior tees. Unless you’re playing in a competition, you play off the daily play tees.

The trick of good course design is to make the course playable without having to resort to several tees. Each hole should be a challenge but should also reward good shots...Royal Portrush seems to be typical of links golf in that it generally satisfies these criteria. The big variable is the weather and particularly the wind where the luck of the draw may play a massive part but that has always been a part of golf.

> @mahonie said:

> > @farmer said:

> > > @2bGood said:

> > > > @farmer said:

> > > > I'm probably in the minority, but I would not enjoy playing a course that beats me up every time I play. If RP had really severe greens, it would be nearly unplayable for just-a-guy type players.

> > >

> > > RP is seriously tough. I played it last fall and shot 93 (after ESC!!!) off a 4 handicap. The wind was howling and missing fairways or green was VERY costly to your score as it often resulted in a lost ball as we did not have spotters.

> > >

> > > I would love to play it again in more friendly weather and see if I could break 80, but on that day the course was way more challenge than I had game.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Now that is tough, which makes my point. I would need to play forward tees, but even from that length, I just can't see the fun.

>

>

> **I don’t get this thing about forward tees. Typically in the UK you have 2 sets of tees for men (daily play and competition tees) and a set of ladies tees. Some courses may have junior tees. Unless you’re playing in a competition, you play off the daily play tees.**

>

> The trick of good course design is to make the course playable without having to resort to several tees. Each hole should be a challenge but should also reward good shots...Royal Portrush seems to be typical of links golf in that it generally satisfies these criteria. The big variable is the weather and particularly the wind where the luck of the draw may play a massive part but that has always been a part of golf.

Oh, I can help you out. See, when you don't hit it far enough to have fun and play fast, you can go to the next set of tees forward. Say, for intstance, a particular hole is a 460 par 4 from the back tees. It might be 420 from the next tees forward, 370 from the next tees forward from that, and then 310 from the front tees. That's how it works for us here in the United States resorting to these multiple tees. So, for example, someone who carries it 280 can have an enjoyable round with someone who carries it 160. I just wanted to explain because you said you didn't get it.

Anyway, it's so cool and unique how things typically work in Britain. I wish more of the courses in the United States would adopt this approach of course design where the course is playable, and where each hole is a challenge that rewards good shots, but is also tougher when the weather is bad. We simply don't have that in the U.S. with our multiple teeing grounds, which are completely different than those typically used in the UK, with their tournament, daily play, ladies, and junior tees.

I also dislike the OB stakes, I’d like to see some of those balls in play and recovery attempts from awful lies/positions.

> @NoodleSalad said:

> Why do people say this kind of golf is natural? Sky ran a segment on architect Martin Ebert, mentioning his renovations to the course. They showed a gigantic earth mover forming artificial mounds somewhere on one of his redesigned holes. Not natural, sorry! Then there's all the internal OB which is just garbage and not natural at all.

I played RP recently and it is an outstanding course IMO. It very challenging off the tee, and you absolutely need to stay out of the fairway bunkers and deep rough. However the rest of the course is quite playable. I didn't shoot a low score there, but I really enjoyed the course.

> @mahonie said:

> > @farmer said:

> > > @2bGood said:

> > > > @farmer said:

> > > > I'm probably in the minority, but I would not enjoy playing a course that beats me up every time I play. If RP had really severe greens, it would be nearly unplayable for just-a-guy type players.

> > >

> > > RP is seriously tough. I played it last fall and shot 93 (after ESC!!!) off a 4 handicap. The wind was howling and missing fairways or green was VERY costly to your score as it often resulted in a lost ball as we did not have spotters.

> > >

> > > I would love to play it again in more friendly weather and see if I could break 80, but on that day the course was way more challenge than I had game.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Now that is tough, which makes my point. I would need to play forward tees, but even from that length, I just can't see the fun.

>

>

> I don’t get this thing about forward tees. Typically in the UK you have 2 sets of tees for men (daily play and competition tees) and a set of ladies tees. Some courses may have junior tees. Unless you’re playing in a competition, you play off the daily play tees.

>

> The trick of good course design is to make the course playable without having to resort to several tees. Each hole should be a challenge but should also reward good shots...Royal Portrush seems to be typical of links golf in that it generally satisfies these criteria. The big variable is the weather and particularly the wind where the luck of the draw may play a massive part but that has always been a part of golf.

Get old and you will understand about forward tees.

> @farmer said:

> > @mahonie said:

> > > @farmer said:

> > > > @2bGood said:

> > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > I'm probably in the minority, but I would not enjoy playing a course that beats me up every time I play. If RP had really severe greens, it would be nearly unplayable for just-a-guy type players.

> > > >

> > > > RP is seriously tough. I played it last fall and shot 93 (after ESC!!!) off a 4 handicap. The wind was howling and missing fairways or green was VERY costly to your score as it often resulted in a lost ball as we did not have spotters.

> > > >

> > > > I would love to play it again in more friendly weather and see if I could break 80, but on that day the course was way more challenge than I had game.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Now that is tough, which makes my point. I would need to play forward tees, but even from that length, I just can't see the fun.

> >

> >

> > I don’t get this thing about forward tees. Typically in the UK you have 2 sets of tees for men (daily play and competition tees) and a set of ladies tees. Some courses may have junior tees. Unless you’re playing in a competition, you play off the daily play tees.

> >

> > The trick of good course design is to make the course playable without having to resort to several tees. Each hole should be a challenge but should also reward good shots...Royal Portrush seems to be typical of links golf in that it generally satisfies these criteria. The big variable is the weather and particularly the wind where the luck of the draw may play a massive part but that has always been a part of golf.

>

> Get old and you will understand about forward tees.

They don't have forward tees in the UK. Their completely unique course designs don't have to resort to multiple tees. Instead, they just have tournament, daily play, ladies, and junior tees. These are completely different than Black/Blue/White/Red.

AS, thanks for your clarification. I just didn't understand. I bow to your logic.

> @mahonie said:

> > @NoodleSalad said:

> > Why do people say this kind of golf is natural? Sky ran a segment on architect Martin Ebert, mentioning his renovations to the course. They showed a gigantic earth mover forming artificial mounds somewhere on one of his redesigned holes. Not natural, sorry! Then there's all the internal OB which is just garbage and not natural at all.

> Sky also ran a segment during one of the PGA Tour events last year...can’t remember which one, they all seem to be one big tournament to me...where they looked at one hole where Justin Thomas hit drives on 2 consecutive days that finished 290 yards apart...one straight left, one straight right (no wind to speak of) and he still made par 4. The commentators called it miraculous...not really, he had great lies on both occasions even though he was so far offline and a massive green to aim at. That’s not golf. Golf is supposed to test all facets of the game...not just give rewards for length off the tee. The PGA Tour has sold its soul to the devil of distance and has become a complete borefest as a result.

>

A lot of silly generalizations packed in there, suggesting you either don't watch much U.S. golf or are just blinded by prejudice. I'll just point out that the winning score at the Scottish Open was 22 under par. Is that Europe's answer to the "bomb and gouge" problem where "all facets" of a player's game are tested? As for borefests, maybe you prefer exciting events like Golf Sixes featuring pink mascots and astroturf tee boxes in front of 500 wildly enthusiastic fans. To each his own...