Bethpage/East Coast/NY Bashing...just plain BS

[Phil McDade]

 Mike Davis' set-up is terrific...no one could make a course with such a high water-table drain any faster than the deluge that assaults it. Simple rule of hydraulics prove that if the supply of fresh fluid exceeds the ability of present fluid to drain or evaporate, fluid remains...simple!!

-----------------------------------

Steve:

Davis said the other day that the Black actually drains a lot better than a lot of other US Open sites because of the sand-based ground on Long Island upon which it sits.

Thanks for the rain totals -- the kind of info. I've been seeking. I'd still like to see some comparable weather/rain data between the two years. I'll take your word that it's been wetter this year than in '02.

That being said, if the rain and wet/soft conditions allow players to "throw darts" (your term; presumably meaning: at greens), doesn't that mean they can also throw darts at fairways? It's all of a piece, right? Soft conditions apply to both fairways and greens. The softness of the fairways allows players the ability to hit fairways just as much as they are able to go flag-hunting, doesn't it? I've been struck by how many players are taking something other than driver off tees of very long holes at the Black. I assume they are doing so because it: a) all but guarantees they'll hit the fairway; and b) the longer shot into a green is largely irrelevant, because players are able to hold longer irons/clubs into the greens and pin placements. ala Weir and his magic utility club.

And this we know -- Davis (or more broadly the USGA) expanded the fairways at the Black, compared to '02. Greens have been expanded compared to '02 (Philip Young's expert thread on the Black). Davis acknowledged putting pins the first day in easier spots on greens because of the weather conditions. Tees have been moved up, on account of the "poor weather conditions" (NBC golf commentator words) -- poor weather that, interestingly, has not resulted in poor scoring conditions, but rather easier scoring conditions. Rough has been shortened, and cut so that only truly wild shots off the tee are penalized severely. Players -- despite the poor weather and the USGA's (correct) abhorrence of lift-clean-place -- have been able to spin balls off of nearly all fairway lies and even out of the rough (see Mediate's first round).

All of this suggests, to me, that the Davis/USGA set-up for the Black for this year was too dependent on avoiding the kinds of rains seen on Long Island this year. The Black by any and all measures, so far, is playing much easier than it did in '02 (and Andy North -- someone who's actually played in tough US Open conditions, and won twice -- just said on ESPN that the course will almost certainly yield a lot of birdies today). I'd argue the course set-up under Davis has a fair amount to do with it.

[Bill_McBride]

I think the low scoring tells you how good these guys really are.  The course is > 7400 yards, par 70, so it is long, long, long, with narrow fairways and thick wet rough.  Both fairways and greens are soft.  No roll on either.  Some of the guys aren't doing so well (Tiger +3), others are keeping the ball in play and hitting longer clubs than ever into those receptive greens.  Sooner or later Rickie Barnes and David Duval are going to start missing fairways and greens and something close to par will win - if the Open ever finishes.  That greenkeeping crew is doing a great job.

Happy Father's Day to all you fathers out there!

[Jeff_Lewis]

A wise man once said "Don't waste time arguing about FACTS."

The course sits on sand.  It drains very well.  The two Opens have unfortunately experienced very unusual weather.  Statistically improbable weather.  Last Open at Shinnecock they never had more than a club of wind. As improbable as what is happening now.

FACT: This is already the sixth rainiest June in NY since they started keeping records and there's still a week and a half to go.

We all know firm and fast is tougher for good players that soft and slow.  Three weeks ago I played the course on an 80 degree day with two clubs of wind and chatted with the Super who said he was hoping for exactly that kind of weather when the tournament time came. Had his hopes borne out, +8 would be a good score. To argue that the scoring has anything to do with the architecture is just silly given the softness of the ground.

So what are you guys arguing about?

Why not talk about how Rees screwed up the bunkers? Or whether 15s pitch represents genius or error? Or about the scale of the place? Or how phenomenal 4 and 5 are strategically in an age with so little strategy?

Here's a real architectural topic.

The ball doesn't curve much any more.  The hardest holes for tour pros are ones that curve.  They can't hit the first fairway because they hit it through the turn and can't move the ball. They can't hit the 2nd fairway because it turns so much and requires a right to left shot.  I am amazed how many guys are trying to hit fades (or really straight shots) to that fairway. There are so many diagonal landing spots on this course its fascinating to see how difficult it is for them to turn the ball.  Look at how many go through the fairway on 5.

I think the reason scores were so high at Winged Foot is so many of the fairways turn short of their landing zone and the equipment just doesn't allow the shot shaping that's necessary. If these fairways were firm, forget it. They'd be very difficult for them to hold.

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I have a very hard time beleiving the oft-repeated claim that the "ball won't turn" anymore.  If you think this is true, then you need to play a round with me because I'm still very capable of hitting 30-40 yard slices and/or hooks.....and its done very easily! 

Now it may be that the ball is less responsive to hitting a controlled fade or draw, but when you watch that ball-flight-thingee on several holes at the PGA tournament, you can see those guys still get a significant amount of left to right and visa versa on thier ball.

[Phil McDade]

Jeff:

Some good points; my argument has been more about set-up vs. architecture, although obviously the two are related.

About curving golf balls, haven't players essentially traded the ability to move the ball for distance? That is, they are willing to have less ball-curving ability in return for more distance, because distance is more often rewarded in the game today.

Why not switch? Are there really NO tournament-quality balls out there that lend themselves to curvature? If a player is confronted by a once-a-year course (like WF or BB) that requires such shot-shaping, can't they make that adjustment? If these guys "are that good," as Mr. McBride says, why aren't they adjusting their equipment to take into account the course they know they will play? Or are they all on auto-pilot, unable to make adjustments?

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff,

I have a very hard time beleiving the oft-repeated claim that the "ball won't turn" anymore.  If you think this is true, then you need to play a round with me because I'm still very capable of hitting 30-40 yard slices and/or hooks.....and its done very easily! 

Now it may be that the ball is less responsive to hitting a controlled fade or draw, but when you watch that ball-flight-thingee on several holes at the PGA tournament, you can see those guys still get a significant amount of left to right and visa versa on thier ball.

Kalen, I think he meant curving the ball on purpose.   

[Steve Lapper]

Astavides,

Of course Matt isn't the same...but if you've had to listen to both as much as I have, there is a certain humor to the certainty of both!!

Kalen,

  "We are willing to take it "..touche...I deserve the admonition! Glad you see the thrust of my thread.

Phil,

   Ask anyone around these parts...this year's rain, beside its depressing nature, has been mush more constant and voluminous than 02.

   I think you make a very valuable set of points. Players are laying back due to their confidence that hybrids and long irons will hold the greens. With their great skill, any course this soft is near impossible to allow for defending par.

   Mike Davis is a solid and humble guy (his locker is next to mine). He'd be the first to admit he wasn't looking for the record rains to continue as they have around here. The tension between his ability to preserve the course's defense of par and the incredible skills of today's players (modern equipment certainly helps), has collapsed, with Mother Nature's fury, in favor of the sub-par round. His set-up isn't to blame when the skies stay as parted as they have. I'm not sure anyone could do any better?

   Jeff Lewis has it right. the facts are the facts.

   I'm done for now and looking forward to seeing some good golf drama today. Par is totally irrelevant in these conditions and to borrow a  turn of a phrase, "frankly, I don't give a damn!"

[Kalen Braley]

Jeff,

I have a very hard time beleiving the oft-repeated claim that the "ball won't turn" anymore.  If you think this is true, then you need to play a round with me because I'm still very capable of hitting 30-40 yard slices and/or hooks.....and its done very easily! 

Now it may be that the ball is less responsive to hitting a controlled fade or draw, but when you watch that ball-flight-thingee on several holes at the PGA tournament, you can see those guys still get a significant amount of left to right and visa versa on thier ball.

Kalen, I think he meant curving the ball on purpose.   

Oh i curve it on purpose too...by aiming 30 yards left of the fairway, it goes right down the middle with my slice   

[J Sadowsky]

Wow, there are golfers on here almost as bad as me?  Let's get a foursome together!

Attack Bethpage all you want, but you won't put it down in my eyes.  And calling it "Bethpage Pink" is just juvenile.

[John Kirk]

The course setup is outstanding, with a wide variety of results for errant shots.  Some may argue that the setup overemphasizes "luck"; I disagree.  It makes for interesting television, which is important.

Perhaps the soft course gives non-elite players a better chance to win.  The putting is less interesting than many major tournaments.  They couldn't even mow the greens this morning, and these greens need to be very fast to be frightening.

The sharply turning fairways are the defining characteristic of this course.  Aesthetically, the course looks good but not great to me. 

I'm enjoying the tournament quite a bit.  Ricky Barnes is playing very well.  Always stoic David Duval is a great story.  There's still opportunities for lots of drama.

[Dave_Miller]

Steve-

Thanks for that post. You basically said everything that I've been thinking as I have read these threads.

You've been thinking?   

Steve:  Happy Father's Day to you.  Good Lord, man, if you were any more defensive, you'd be Bill Russell.  Yes, I think Bethpage Pink is a great, great golf course.  I think the same of OFCC.  How one can be shiskkabobbed by the media for yielding -7 for 36 holes and the other have more excuses and apologies made for it yielding -8 than you can shake a stick at is absolutely beyond me. 

I take no shots at New Yorkers.  I take shots at the media, and as usual, I'm right.

David
Hppy Father's Day.  Unless you have played the Black you have no standing to call it Pink .  I have played there when the Greens were firm and I can tell you it is the hardest golf course I have ever been on and that includes Pine Vally.
Best
Dave

[Matt_Ward]

Phil McDade:

Read your post quite closely.

A few responses ...

Glad to hear you posted right up front that you have never seen or played the Black in person. That's important to know because it's E-Z for anyone to trash the place or area from a deep left field seats perspective that's literally all wet (like this week in the NY metro area has been). I also say this -- if you had played the course your conclusions about the qualities of the course being too E-Z would not be so given that personal observation.

Let me address each point you mentioned ...

Yes, the US Open saw a record-low 36-hole score. Let me point out famed Oakmont yielded a low 18-hole round (Miller's) which also happened to be the low final round score -- which it remains to this day. In 1983 Larry Nelson shot a still record 132 for the final two rounds (65-67). Does either or both situations take away from what a course Oakmont is? I don't think so -- in fact, it makes it better since low scores can be had.

You mention the sheer total of subpar rounds -- let me point out that the '09 BB version has been widened from what it was in '02 - Johnny Miller alluded to this in the telecast -- the rough has been graduated in terms of its depth. You also have a MEGA DELUGE that has been NONSTOP for much of the event.

You highlight the low scores shot by no-elite players. Maybe you have heard of other non-elite players shooting low rounds. Lee Mackey at Merion is one that comes qucikly to mind. You also have no names that have won the US Open -- Steve Jones at OH/S in '96 comes quickly to mind. Does either of those situations render the reputations of Merion or OH/S as less than quality layouts. And, when things do become over-the-top -- see what the PGA did to OH/S prior to the weekend rain -- how the chatter went the other way because the course was just too tough for anything close to compelling golf being played there.

Try to look at the flipside of your comment ... how BB has taken down a peg that top ten players rated in the world -- starting with Tiger and Lefty. Minus Sean O-Hair not one other top ten player is among the top ten players on the leaderboard as I write this.

Phil, you ask about having a bonafide US Open event where par is the standard. We've had such events in the past -- when weather has cooperated -- see the situation with the following three past Opens -- WF/W in '06, Oakmont in '07 and TP in '08. This is the first time I can remember in having been personally at 25 US Opens that weather has been such a dominant storyline. Just try to remember that even when the course and weather have aligned and the USGA has maxed out the place you don't always get the Hogans, Jones, Nicklaus type champions. Maybe you have heard of Sam Parks in '35 at Oakmont of all places. Or how about Orville Moody? Or when WF/W was just a sheer terror in '74 and the USGA was hammered because so many people believed the course was way over-the-top.

Let me also point out something you may not also realize -- BB has been effectively played much shorter because of the weather, Check out the distances that NBC lists when hole info is mentioned. The 3rd is playing 30 yards shorter for round three. Hole 8 is nearly 100 yards shorter. There are others that can be listed here as well.

You mention about the rain in '02 -- the pattern of weather prior to that year's event was not as intense and sustained as this June has been. The amount of H20 that has fallen prior to this year's event and for the entire event thus far has been record setting and if you ask US Open observers for many years they will tell you so. June '09 is shaping up as one of the wettest months since they have been keeping records of such data.

Phil, let's flip things around -- let's say Tiger or Phil or some other "name" player won with a +10 total. What does that show? That the couirse is more compelling --that the win is truly validated. If the course is there for the taking -- you mention all the no-name players -- then the marquis boys should be able to do likewise. Where are they ? That's not a fauilt of the USGA or the course but with their execution to rise to the occasion.

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

In regards to weather and scoring totals ...

Look at what happened to WF/W as a great case study.

When set-up by the PGA of America and in having a good amount of rainfall during the event -- remember the rainbow when Love III putted out in '97 -- WF/W was scored upon by a range of players -- Davis is still the only golfer to have shot below 270 for four rounds at the famed West Course. In past event -- few players had ever broken 280 for four rounds.

Guess what the score was in '07 with the USGA setting up the course and with there being no rain delays during the event -- +5 wins the event with Ogilvy bagging the event.

Does the situation from Love's win or from Ogilvy's make the West less or more of a championship test? Conditions (weather and how the course is set-up) dictate plenty of what can and does happen.

[Mike Wagner]

Steve,

I haven't played BB.  Again, and for tha last time, all I'm saying is that the green complexes are the least exciting of any Open venues...that's all.  It's obviosuly a great course.

Seriously - the bacolounger comment just tells me how effing sensitive you guys are to an opinion that doesn't go your way. 

[Nicholas Coppolo]

Scored would obviously be dramatically different if Mike Davis had NOT accommodated the weather by shortening the majority of holes.   Coupled with graduated rough it makes a VERY tame golf course.

When I was out there for the Wednesday practice round there were several holes where the rough was signifigantly shorter just off the fairways than it was for daily play 6 months ago, when I played last.

With shorter rough and some added width, I walked away with the impression that the golf course would be immensely "gettable", without stretching it out, getting it really firm and getting those greens to 14 or 15.

The exact opposite has happened.

By my estimate I would guess its has been playing around 7150-7250 yards. over the last 3 days.

I don't think this has anything to do with the names on the board however......as always, you can't play BB without hitting a ton of fairways really deep.

[Chris DeNigris]

Maybe somewhat effin sensitive to uninformed (read-never played or walked the course) opinions.

You started an inflamatory, derogatory thread based on no empirical evidence, slamming a place that's near and dear to a lot of people who respect the game and actually wonder why some might take offense?

Not to mention your generic trash-talkin about New Yorkers in general?

Man, I'd quit digging if I were you.

[Steve Lapper]

Nicholas,

   Your point(s) are valid. The course is playing effectively (and unfortunately) shorter. Mike Davis implemented the graduated rough concept to assist in scoring tolerance. We may disagree, but I do respect your opinion as it is formed by experience on the course.

Mike Wagner,

  It seems my "barcolounger" comment is indeed spot on. If you've never been there, you can't possibly have a clue. Yes, you did start and inflammatory thread (from the cheap seats), got called out on it and thus deserve the response you've received. Now if you really want a fair shake, with zero effing sensitivity, pack up your sticks, come out to Farmingdale in late Sept-Oct (when the likelihood of deluge is vastly diminished) and tee it up on the Black vs. myself, Pat Mucci, Matt Ward, Jeff Lewis or any other of our native NY'ers. Even though we are old, past our primes and sooo very sensitive...we'd all happily play one of our home tracks and contribute to watching the Black kick your tail all the way back to wherever you call home. Until then, pop open a fresh one, spit out your chew, pull the recliner a little closer to your ancient TV (convert yet to digital?), turn down Johnny and watch the pros praise the course they are struggling with.

  PS...we welcome opinions we don't agree with, so long as they are based on fact and experience. Are yours?

[JC Jones]

Nicholas,

   Your point(s) are valid. The course is playing effectively (and unfortunately) shorter. Mike Davis implemented the graduated rough concept to assist in scoring tolerance. We may disagree, but I do respect your opinion as it is formed by experience on the course.

Mike Wagner,

  It seems my "barcolounger" comment is indeed spot on. If you've never been there, you can't possibly have a clue. Yes, you did start and inflammatory thread (from the cheap seats), got called out on it and thus deserve the response you've received. Now if you really want a fair shake, with zero effing sensitivity, pack up your sticks, come out to Farmingdale in late Sept-Oct (when the likelihood of deluge is vastly diminished) and tee it up on the Black vs. myself, Pat Mucci, Matt Ward, Jeff Lewis or any other of our native NY'ers. Even though we are old, past our primes and sooo very sensitive...we'd all happily play one of our home tracks and contribute to watching the Black kick your tail all the way back to wherever you call home. Until then, pop open a fresh one, spit out your chew, pull the recliner a little closer to your ancient TV (convert yet to digital?), turn down Johnny and watch the pros praise the course they are struggling with.

  PS...we welcome opinions we don't agree with, so long as they are based on fact and experience. Are yours?

Seriously Steve, how do you really feel about midwesterners...

[Jim Nugent]

Steve,

I haven't played BB.  Again, and for tha last time, all I'm saying is that the green complexes are the least exciting of any Open venues...that's all.  It's obviosuly a great course.

Seriously - the bacolounger comment just tells me how effing sensitive you guys are to an opinion that doesn't go your way. 

Some revisionist history going on here.  You titled your thread, "Can't think of a more BORING Open site..."  Your complaint did not stop with the greens.  You said, "I see nothing of architectural interest other than it's long..."

So you surprised the hell out of me in this post when you now say BB is obviously a great course. 

Which is it?  Great, or BORING with nothing of architectural interest? 

[Mike Wagner]

Jim,

It clearly has architectural interest - just not even close to my favorite.  The main point I was making was that the greens are not that exciting, making this the most boring Open I've ever watched.

I'm not complaining, I'm simply saying it's the least exciting Open I've ever seen.  There has to be one by definition, doesn't there?

[mike_malone]

 I do think the N.Y. city area courses are slightly overrated as a class. Bring back Cobbs Creek's original routing and stretch it out to 7400 yards and let's have at it!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mayday,

Which courses in the NY city area do you think are overrated ?

Have you played Fenway, Plainfield, Ridgewood, Hollywood, Mt Ridge, Somerset Hills, Essex  County, The Knoll, GCGC, Piping Rock, The Creek, Quaker Ridge and other underrated courses in the NY city area courses ?

[mike_malone]

 Pat,

  On  your "underrated " list I have played Plainfield which I loved. I see Baltrusrol, which I have only walked, and WFW (played and walked) as the standard bearers of the "overrated". I  would put BPB into the "slightly" overrated category.


     I await your invite to some of the other underrated courses to evaluate them as you recommend.

[Steve Lapper]

Nicholas,

   Your point(s) are valid. The course is playing effectively (and unfortunately) shorter. Mike Davis implemented the graduated rough concept to assist in scoring tolerance. We may disagree, but I do respect your opinion as it is formed by experience on the course.

Mike Wagner,

  It seems my "barcolounger" comment is indeed spot on. If you've never been there, you can't possibly have a clue. Yes, you did start and inflammatory thread (from the cheap seats), got called out on it and thus deserve the response you've received. Now if you really want a fair shake, with zero effing sensitivity, pack up your sticks, come out to Farmingdale in late Sept-Oct (when the likelihood of deluge is vastly diminished) and tee it up on the Black vs. myself, Pat Mucci, Matt Ward, Jeff Lewis or any other of our native NY'ers. Even though we are old, past our primes and sooo very sensitive...we'd all happily play one of our home tracks and contribute to watching the Black kick your tail all the way back to wherever you call home. Until then, pop open a fresh one, spit out your chew, pull the recliner a little closer to your ancient TV (convert yet to digital?), turn down Johnny and watch the pros praise the course they are struggling with.

  PS...we welcome opinions we don't agree with, so long as they are based on fact and experience. Are yours?

Seriously Steve, how do you really feel about midwesterners...

Having lived in Chicago for 13+ yrs, remained biz partners with two, and close to quite a few, I love-'em. That's the truth. Midwesterners, for the most part are solid, straightforward, hard-working folks. They are good fans, but often have a higher tolerance for losing and are usually far more forgiving than East Coasters.

Schmidt and myself have bantered enough over the years that we can tease one another all day long with no serious consequence. Now I've got zero idea where this Mike Wagner comes from, but his unfounded and misrepresented claims (never has set foot at the Black) and his revisionist history are bullcrap. If he comes from the midwest...do yourself a favor and trade him for someone like Mayday. We can afford to lose a Philly guy ....no one would miss him!!!

[Phil McDade]

Phil McDade:

Read your post quite closely.

A few responses ...

Glad to hear you posted right up front that you have never seen or played the Black in person. That's important to know because it's E-Z for anyone to trash the place or area from a deep left field seats perspective that's literally all wet (like this week in the NY metro area has been). I also say this -- if you had played the course your conclusions about the qualities of the course being too E-Z would not be so given that personal observation.

Matt: I don't believe my personal experience on the Black, if I had played it, would make a difference in my assessment of the course and its set-up for this Open for these players. The two have nothing to do with each other. I can pretty easily make 15-footers in my driveway, because I've shot basketballs since I was about 8. I'm not sure that has anything to do with the ability of the average NBAer to shot 15-footers over Kobe Bryant in the NBA playoffs. I don't believe I've trashed the Black; maybe others on the Discussion Board have, but I've stuck to criticisms and questions about its set-up for this championship.

Let me address each point you mentioned ...

Yes, the US Open saw a record-low 36-hole score. Let me point out famed Oakmont yielded a low 18-hole round (Miller's) which also happened to be the low final round score -- which it remains to this day. In 1983 Larry Nelson shot a still record 132 for the final two rounds (65-67). Does either or both situations take away from what a course Oakmont is? I don't think so -- in fact, it makes it better since low scores can be had.

Matt: Nelson and Miller's achievements at Oakmont were singular accomplishments, largely unmatched during those Opens. Fact: Nelson shot 65-67 on the weekend in '83, six shots better than anyone else on the weekend. No one came close to what he did, which suggests the course wasn't yielding lots of low scores, just his. Pebble Beach, after all, was a beast in 2000, with no one scoring better than +3 for the entire tourney. Except for, you know, Woods -- Secretareit at the Belmont '73. Oakmont's leaderboard in '83 went -4, -3, -1, then +2 for those T-4. That's a proper examination of golf in the US Open. Similarly, the final round at Oakmont in '73 saw Miller go 63, Wadkins 65, two 68s (one of those by Jack N.), and nothing else under 70. Final leaderboard was -5, -4, -3, and then six golfers bunched at -2 and -1. That included Miller, Weiskopf, Nicklaus, Palmer, Trevino, Boros and Wadkins -- one of the better US Open leaderboards in history. In soggy conditions.

You mention the sheer total of subpar rounds -- let me point out that the '09 BB version has been widened from what it was in '02 - Johnny Miller alluded to this in the telecast -- the rough has been graduated in terms of its depth. You also have a MEGA DELUGE that has been NONSTOP for much of the event.

Matt: Thanks for acknowledging my primary argument -- that the USGA set this course up easier than in '02, and that weather conditions exacerbated the easier course, yielding record-breaking scores.

You highlight the low scores shot by no-elite players. Maybe you have heard of other non-elite players shooting low rounds. Lee Mackey at Merion is one that comes qucikly to mind. You also have no names that have won the US Open -- Steve Jones at OH/S in '96 comes quickly to mind. Does either of those situations render the reputations of Merion or OH/S as less than quality layouts. And, when things do become over-the-top -- see what the PGA did to OH/S prior to the weekend rain -- how the chatter went the other way because the course was just too tough for anything close to compelling golf being played there.

Matt: I thought the golf at WFoot in '06 was incredibly compelling -- Mickelson's choke, Monty's near-miss, Olgivy's great finish, the unknown Ferrie hanging in there, Furyk and Harrington blowing putts down the stretch to possibly contend. I thought the set-up there was terrific, and it showcased an Open-worthy course.  The same holds true w/ Oakmont in '07 -- another compelling tournament, with the course and its set-up (the 17th with Furyk and Tiger comes immediately to mind) having a major impact on the outcome. Both had winning scores well over par, but both courses and set-ups produced compelling golf.

Try to look at the flipside of your comment ... how BB has taken down a peg that top ten players rated in the world -- starting with Tiger and Lefty. Minus Sean O-Hair not one other top ten player is among the top ten players on the leaderboard as I write this.

Phil, you ask about having a bonafide US Open event where par is the standard. We've had such events in the past -- when weather has cooperated -- see the situation with the following three past Opens -- WF/W in '06, Oakmont in '07 and TP in '08. This is the first time I can remember in having been personally at 25 US Opens that weather has been such a dominant storyline. Just try to remember that even when the course and weather have aligned and the USGA has maxed out the place you don't always get the Hogans, Jones, Nicklaus type champions. Maybe you have heard of Sam Parks in '35 at Oakmont of all places. Or how about Orville Moody? Or when WF/W was just a sheer terror in '74 and the USGA was hammered because so many people believed the course was way over-the-top.

Matt: I believe, and I think the record would show, that great courses properly set-up identify the world's best players. Not every single time, but generally so. Pebble's list of Open winners, to cite one course, includes Nicklaus, Watson, Kite, and Woods -- an awfully good group of golfers. Majors will always have flukey winners, because it's the nature of the game -- LeBron and Kobe have far greater ability to be consistently great at their games, compared to golfers, because of the fickle nature of golf and the fine line between greatness and also-ran. Tiger's having a bad week; he's had them before. He's still, by far, the best player around, no? Yes, Jones won at OH/S, but Moody won at Champions -- is that a venue on par w/ WFoot, Shinnecock or Oakmont?

Let me also point out something you may not also realize -- BB has been effectively played much shorter because of the weather, Check out the distances that NBC lists when hole info is mentioned. The 3rd is playing 30 yards shorter for round three. Hole 8 is nearly 100 yards shorter. There are others that can be listed here as well.

Matt: If the weather has made the course easier, as nearly every NYork-area poster here argues, why has the USGA made it all the more easier by moving tees up? What gives? Have the blue-coats lost their mojo? Whatever happened to protecting par? Where's Sandy Tatum when we need him?

You mention about the rain in '02 -- the pattern of weather prior to that year's event was not as intense and sustained as this June has been. The amount of H20 that has fallen prior to this year's event and for the entire event thus far has been record setting and if you ask US Open observers for many years they will tell you so. June '09 is shaping up as one of the wettest months since they have been keeping records of such data.

Phil, let's flip things around -- let's say Tiger or Phil or some other "name" player won with a +10 total. What does that show? That the couirse is more compelling --that the win is truly validated. If the course is there for the taking -- you mention all the no-name players -- then the marquis boys should be able to do likewise. Where are they ? That's not a fauilt of the USGA or the course but with their execution to rise to the occasion.