I totally disagree.It's mundane. If it wasn't in SF it would still be a lettuce farm
I totally disagree.It's mundane. If it wasn't in SF it would still be a lettuce farm
Can you be more specific? What do you like about it?I totally disagree.
You mean each player's hole or the overall average of the hole for every golfer?Anyone know where I can find hole-by-hole scoring statistics? ESPN has a page, but it's not updated. I haven't been able to find them anywhere else.
Sorry.Can you be more specific? What do you like about it?
PGAChampionship.com leaderboard has shot by shot stats, but it’s pretty slow to update.Anyone know where I can find hole-by-hole scoring statistics? ESPN has a page, but it's not updated. I haven't been able to find them anywhere else.
No worries.Sorry.
It is a stunning piece of rolling terrain on a peninsula exposed to the elements. Narrow fairways with some blind landing areas in between really interesting cypress tree groupings that force you to work the ball (both ways). Some cool elevation changes around the green complexes.
In my opinion, the worst part of the course is the size and flatness of the greens, but that is understandable given there are 65,000 rounds played annually. With a lot of the pin placements I've seen thus far, many putts just don't move that much.
Can you be more specific? What do you like about it?
I agree it's on a great piece of land. That's what I should have said instead of SF -- it's a great location. You can tell it's old just from the design. With all the work that's been done to it you'd think they would have added more complexity with smaller, tougher greens and more bunkers -- both greenside and fairway. So many of the holes are straight with no trouble and run parallel to each other, and I disagree about the elevation. It's pretty flat. It's not Florida flat, but for a costal California course next to a lake I would want more. The strategy is hit it long and straight and go right at the flag. The player don't have to think. I'm describing the courses I play, not the ones that host majors. Without the juiced up rough and thinner fairways it would be getting run over and while making fairways skinnier and rough longer makes a course play hard it takes away from strategy. It's a difficult balance but the design didn't leave them many options IMO. Maybe I'm an elitist but I just think the course could be so much more.Sorry.
It is a stunning piece of rolling terrain on a peninsula exposed to the elements. Narrow fairways with some blind landing areas in between really interesting cypress tree groupings that force you to work the ball (both ways). Some cool elevation changes around the green complexes.
In my opinion, the worst part of the course is the size and flatness of the greens, but that is understandable given there are 65,000 rounds played annually. With a lot of the pin placements I've seen thus far, many putts just don't move that much.
No, it's that the PGA of America can choose any course in the US - public or private - to host one of the four most important golf tournaments of the year. If they're going to choose a public course, they really ought to choose a course at least as good as Bethpage Black. And Harding Park currently charges $180 for a weekday greens fee and $200 at the weekend, which doesn't sound like muni prices to me. (Bethpage is $130/$150, by the way, and half of that for New Yorkers.) I'd rather see the majors played at the best courses in the world, or at least a course worthy to be ranked among the Top 100 Public Courses in the US.It isn't fair to compare Harding Park to Olympic or any major-worthy private golf course. It's OK to appreciate it for what it is. They just can't do what you would want them to do to it.
The PGA of America can most certainly not pick any course in America.No, it's that the PGA of America can choose any course in the US - public or private - to host one of the four most important golf tournaments of the year. If they're going to choose a public course, they really ought to choose a course at least as good as Bethpage Black. And Harding Park currently charges $180 for a weekday greens fee and $200 at the weekend, which doesn't sound like muni prices to me. (Bethpage is $130/$150, by the way, and half of that for New Yorkers.) I'd rather see the majors played at the best courses in the world, or at least a course worthy to be ranked among the Top 100 Public Courses in the US.
(I started a rant about how the club and ball technology arms race have rendered a lot of great potential courses obsolete at the elite level, but I won't derail this thread any further by going down that road.)
I don't think it's a travesty. And Sahalee and Bellerive are probably less exciting than Harding Park - particularly visually - although I'd probably prefer Hazeltine. I do think there are plenty of resort courses across America that would *love* to get the publicity of hosting a major, but I'm happy to let this topic drop.I don't think it is some sort of travesty that they went to Harding Park. The PGA picks vanilla courses all the time (I took offense to the word mundane, HP is more interesting than that to me, unlike Hazeltine or Sahalee or Bellerive).
IDK what they're allowed to do or not with regulations but the trees are dying so I imagine it's do for more work in the future. Hopefully they can give it some teeth and accompanying strategy. I don't mean to offend but for a design nerd like me the course doesn't do much and it would be a shame to keep it that given it's importance, history, and locationThe PGA of America can most certainly not pick any course in America.
I don't think it is some sort of travesty that they went to Harding Park. The PGA picks vanilla courses all the time (I took offense to the word mundane, HP is more interesting than that to me, unlike Hazeltine or Sahalee or Bellerive). There aren't that many great golf courses that want the PGA.
Like Bethpage, it is great that they are having a major at a public course in a huge metro area, where Bay Area residents can get on for $64. Is HP the Black? No, but not many places are.
Why are they obsessed with the guy practicing?
Zach Johnson not far behind. Can't say I'm surprisedKaymer gonna go 66-81 or thereabouts
I actually think that they're a pretty good pairing. Neither one cares what you think.Haha Reed and DeChambeau playing together tomorrow, too bad there aren't fans on the course for this pairing
Agree 100%. There is literally nothing I miss about fans being there.I’m still enjoying no fans. It has felt like a major to me.
That one hole along the property border with some fans screaming useless nonsense was a small reminder of their worst aspects. I don't miss the fans at all.Agree 100%. There is literally nothing I miss about fans being there.
I thought the same thing.That one hole along the property border with some fans screaming useless nonsense was a small reminder of their worst aspects. I don't miss the fans at all.
For all the BS that Reed and Bryson try to pull, it's refreshing to root for a guy like Rory. Such a stud.I placed it, and the rule is try to replicate the lie. No one really knew what the lie was, but if everyone is going around looking for it, it obviously wasn’t too good. So I placed it, I was like: ‘That just doesn’t look right to me.’ So I just placed it down a little bit.
Bob Waschsen is great too. Too bad he had to call the Jets.Sean McDonough is tremendous. I miss him.
Maybe Reed and Sergio, though old Sergio is certainly more palatable than young Sergio. Bubba is at least fun to watch with all the crazy ways he shapes shots. I really want to like Bryson, I just can't...Reed and Bubba? Reed and Sergio? Reed at least is always one of the pair.