Bradley S. Klein

Brad Klein is a most interesting fellow. A professor of American history, he has caddied on the PGA Tour and, for some time, has written enthusiastically, interestingly and sometimes, caustically, for Golfweek. His beat is one that rarely gets more than a passing glance from the brethren, course architecture and construction. His collection of essays: Rough Meditations, published by Sleeping Bear Press, is reviewed elsewhere. We spoke the week before the U.S. Open's return to Pebble Beach.

The Hearthstone Review: The player of the century apparently doesn't like seeing the second hole at Pebble Beach converted to a par four. We know, however, that this is something the USGA has been doing for decades.

Bradley Klein: Do we really care what Jack Nicklaus thinks? Everybody's got an opinion. You know, he's just another player in the field this week, sorry to say. And, unfortunately, he's right in terms of the USGA's reluctance or refusal to control the distance the ball goes so those short (par) fives are now obsolete.

THR: Apropos of nothing, are you familiar with the Myopia Hunt Club in Boston?

BK: Actually, it's the only golf course in the world I've not been to.

THR: Well, I want to read you a comment from Alex Ross, recalling the 1908 Open held at the Myopia Hunt Club.

BK: He was defending champion that year. . .

THR: Thirty-eight years later he told the Detroit News: "The rough was so thick you couldn't make your backswing. You were forced to play back on the fairway and you were lucky to do so in one stroke.

"The greens were such that they had the cups where they knew it would be the toughest to get the ball in. Mike Brady took nine putts on one green and on the fourth green, which was like marble, Ernie Way hit a putt that rolled down a ridge off the green into a swamp. He never found it. He was probably the only golfer ever to lose his ball in the rough after a putt."

We should take the inevitable whining over course conditions with a considerable dose of salt, shouldn't we?

BK: Don't forget there were no rakes then either. Those guys were pioneers. There was none of those perfect lies in the fairways, and perfect fluffy bunkers. The game has always been hit it, find it, hit it again. And, today's players have it far too easy and they expect too much.

THR: In '92, when Tom Kite won - in the final round - you'll recall a gale was blowing. When they got to #14 and #17, he and his caddie Mike Carrick decided in each instance that the safest play was into a bunker; an "easy three wood" on 14, the par five, and the same on #17, playing 235 yards into the wind, too long they figured for a three-wood and too dangerous for a driver.

What are your thoughts about a course set-up that has players deliberately aiming for bunkers?

BK: You make a great point. Here's the point. Bunkers used to be a hazard. Now pros would much prefer the bunker because the lie is perfectly predictable. The USGA does not allow the bunker sand to be so soft that the ball would bury. So they're never going to get a bad lie whereas if you hit it in the rough you never know what you're going to get.

The rule of thumb in the open is to keep the ball in front of you, keep it in play. You don't want it wandering out on the side because the wind will whip it out of line. I think you make a very good point. The USGA actually started this last year. The sand is actually getting a little bit fluffier but they need to be…there's just too much consistency in the game and it's led to the kind of thing you're talking about, which is a travesty.

THR: I know Ray Floyd was outspoken in '92. He called the set-up a joke and afterwards the USGA acknowledged that if they'd known the wind was going to be so prevalent, the greens would've been watered more and the pin placements not so tough. My question: Why should we expect anything less at Pebble? When you play four rounds there, you're going to get a variety of conditions.

BK: Well, don't forget, for three days in '92 the scoring conditions were perfect. Gil Morgan had reached 10-under par by the fifth hole on Friday. So what happened was simply that the course, which is always firm and dry in the summertime - this is the dry season out there - simply got caught up in a lot of wind. But that's what happens at a seaside golf course. What you'll see is that the course will be a little more watered - they'll be a little more mindful. In retrospect, all they had to do was look at their weather stations and they would've known the wind was coming up but, you know what?

I think people who watched that tournament thought it was one of the greatest final rounds ever. I think Tom Kite shot 72 that day to win hitting seven greens in regulation. That's a phenomenal game of recovery and up and down. So that's part of the game too.

THR: A quick question about The Old Course. There have been reports that there may be very serious problems due to erosion. Is that your understanding?

BK: Well, no, actually, because it's set pretty far away from the sea, the only area of erosion concern would be behind the 7th - 11th greens - the joint green. There are many other courses, however, in Britain and Ireland: Ballybunion, Carnoustie, Royal Aberdeen but the Old Course is okay for now.

THR: Getting back to Pebble Beach, do you really think it's worth $325 a round?

BK: Well, I don't think any golf course is worth more than $100, but given what the market is, if you have a chance, it's a great experience. I must say that I think the facility is very poorly managed, even by the new owners. They run it like a money machine. You need an ATM at the turn. It's very high priced. The rounds take forever. It's not a well-run facility but it is a spectacular piece of land, so I suggest you go play it once. Make sure it's a nice day though.

"I don't think any golf course is worth more than $100. . ."

THR: I gather that the Monterrey pine that frames the 18th hole is in serious jeopardy.

BK: All the Monterrey pines are stressed out. They're going to die. They're on the way out. That's nature's course. But that tree, it's interesting, is completely out of play. The pro golfers don't even look at it. And that's a hole that doesn't need a pine there because the hole is hard enough for most players without it. But my point generally is that most golf courses in the United States have far too many trees.

THR: But it's hard to imagine that hole without it, even if it only adds a picturesque rather than strategic element.

BK: Well, I'm not sure. That's a tough site to grow a single tree. A lot of these trees will do fine in groves but once they're exposed and take the brunt of the weather they don't stand up well.

THR: You happened to be on the golf course, at #17, for the final round of the '82 Open. You saw two very interesting things. One was Tom Watson sink that miraculous chip. The other was the distinguished essayist Herbert Warren Wind standing alongside.

BK: Actually, I was caddying for [Bernard] Langer that week and he missed the cut. He had his putting woes so I had the weekend free. And I spectated with Herb Wind and we had watched Watson the entire final round and were right in front of the green when he chipped in. And it was absolutely one of those stunning moments. Herb had his mouth wide open, just silent. It was just astonishing. I don't think anyone thought he was going to do it. It dropped and boom, Watson's career was made and Herb saw another fine shot in his fine writing career.

THR: No one can play that hole and not go over and try and duplicate that shot. I gather the shot is not quite the same with changes to the grass. How hard a shot, in your mind, do you think it was?

BK: Actually, it wasn't that hard a shot. It was down grain. The ball was sitting up well. I believe that they have a little spot….I know they've had trouble maintaining the turf there because people for years after were, and still are, trying it. But it really wasn't that hard a shot although that's not to take anything away from the moment. It was pretty good timing.

THR: And what was Mr. Wind's reaction?

BK: Well, he was just stunned. His mouth was just wide open. The amazing thing was that Watson had just come off a rather sloppy bogey at 16. He had driven it into the new fairway bunker on the right, pitched out, hit a wedge on and two putted for bogey. I think he was tied or one shot ahead of Nicklaus and then made that unexpected birdie. It just was overwhelming.

THR: You mentioned the benign conditions they had for the first three days in '92. Would it be such a bad thing if someone like Gil Morgan would be 12 under par through seven holes on Saturday and be able to ride that in? If we end up with a winner at five or six under par, would that be such a bad thing?

BK: I don't understand the concern about shooting par. If a guy shoots a great number, fine, he wins the tournament. Conditions change dramatically. I do think however that what happens is that golf courses like Pebble with par fives - several of which are short these days; the point is to make them sweat out the second shot to the green or to make a good third shot and it's very hard today to make players hit long irons into four pars and to sweat out the approach into a par five. But it's taken some of the drama out. They're all hitting too many short irons and so, it's taken a lot of the skill out of the game. That's the problem with golf.

THR: I listened to Tom Wishon, one of the more experienced and candid club makers, say recently that he felt we were almost this close to achieving a certain technical perfection, reaching the envelope in terms of technology, with clubs. I'm wondering whether technological advances are comparable in achieving some sort of agronomic perfection in how courses are maintained and set up?

BK: I think you're right. Basically, a golf course can't be set up any better than it's being set up today. A simple way to put it, Jim, is that fairways today are maintained the way greens were thirty years ago in terms of speed and so on. I'll give you an example. Wannamoisett Country Club in [Rumford] Rhode Island, a wonderful Donald Ross course. For tournament play, they cut their greens to 77/1000s of an inch.

"Basically, a golf course can't be set up any better than it's being set up today…fairways today are maintained the way greens were thirty years ago in terms of speed…"

THR: How fast would a ball run then, according to the Stimpmeter?

BK: On a dead flat surface, about 12.5. That's pretty scary. So you can't cut grass any shorter so now what's happened is that all the changes have made perfect consistency so now you see golf courses often set up without any areas marked off for free drops so the quality of turf grass is perfect. It can't always be maintained that way for a long time but for tournament week it can be. So, what you're now going to have to do is go to faster, harder surfaces so the ball bounces. If you want to get players into trouble now, speed up the golf course. Dry it out. Get the water out of the fairways so the ball rolls into trouble. Ground contours will always be the way to make the game interesting.

THR: Do you think some of the changes in course construction have made architects a little lazier because they have more weapons in their arsenal in combating certain problems?

BK: You're right. The first problem is because of cart paths and real estate architects forget about the first element which is routing, the sequence of hole and the alignment of green to the next tee. The old courses, it was a very short walk from green to the next tee. Nowadays, it's a cross-country hike. So the architects have gotten lazy. The other thing is that they don't look for contours, they just build it in with a bulldozer and for dramatic effect instead of creating interesting shots and angles, they put waterfalls and fountains and scale models of Mt. Vesuvius. So there's a lot of show and pizzazz and nonsense and not enough attention to classical ground game virtues.

"…they don't look for contours, they just build it in with a bulldozer and for dramatic effect, instead of creating interesting shots and angles, they put in waterfalls and fountains and scale models of Mt. Vesuvius. . . .There's…not enough attention to classical ground game virtues."

THR: Last question: We're at the dawn of a new century, fifty years from now will courses be substantially different then they are now?

BK: I hope so. I can tell you this. A lot of the golf courses highly ranked now, thirty years off people will wonder what was the point, what all the hubbub was about. What you will see is more natural golf courses, fewer earth movement, less disturbance of the turf grass and, at least among some architects, there's a move towards more elemental, back to nature design.

© The Hearthstone Review

Talking Points - Edition I
Talking Points - Edition II