Upon reflection, I'm struck by how hard Winged Foot played at the US Open this year, relative to how it played in the '97 PGA. What accounted for the vast differences in scoring? Added length, primarily? Fairway width/rough? Condition of greens? Pre-tournament weather?
A few facts I've gleaned from the two tournaments: WF '06 yielded 12 sub-par rounds, and 10 of those were 69s. WF '97 yielded nearly five times as many sub-par rounds, with two 65s, 4 66s (including three by Love), and 8 67s. A total of 22 players at WF '97 finished at +4 or lower, or better than the '06 winning score of +5.
I tend by accept the widely held view that the USGA sets up its courses tougher than the PGA for its major. But, take a look at scoring at courses (past 15 years or so) that have hosted both -- Oak Hill, Baltusrol, Hazeltine, Southern Hills and Medinah. Winning and overall scores at PGAs have not been that much lower than at US Opens -- certainly not the disparity witnessed between WF '97 and '06.
Thoughts?