US Open Site/Setup-Does It Matter?

[JMEvensky]

Is a US Open score of ~ 280 a product of self-fulfilled prophecy?

Most have read of Tour Pro's uncanny knack for knowing a number needed before play starts.Winning score,cut number,qualifier-they just seem to know what's necessary.I've always heard/read that Nicklaus had an other-worldly ability to "know" what he needed to shoot and then go shoot it.

Per the HBO program last week,Palmer asked Bob Drum if a final round 65 would win because "280 always wins the Open".

How important is the site and the set up?Given virtually any ~7000 yard golf course and "normal/customary" USGA preparation,is 280 a winner because the players "know" that 280 usually wins the Open?If Torrey Pines had hosted the Buick last week under the same conditions,would the scores have been the same?

[Phil_the_Author]

JM,

No, they wouldn't. Rocco would have won and there wouldn't have been a playoff because Tiger would not have played...

[John Moore II]

I think that course and set-up does matter. You set a normal tour course up like they set up for the Open and the scores would be near the same. Guys will always play more conservative when they know a double or triple (or worse) is within easy reach with just one or two bad shots. Those scores win because the courses are hard. Tiger's score at Pebble was simply unreal since the nearest to him was +3 and Furyk at Olympia Fields was because of great scoring conditions the first two days. Even par (or very near it) wins US Opens because thats what should win and that is the best the course will yield.

--If you played the US Open at Kapalua under the same conditions as the Mercedes Championship, the winning score would still be 15-20 under.