Mike S:
Thanks for the plug !
Phil:
Thanks for the detailed reply to my initial comments to your first post.
A few more are needed now ...
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.
RESPONSE ... Watch the way the final round shapes up -- then weigh in with the final conclusion about how the course was set-up. You have had people on this site jump on the bandwagon of throwing the Black under the bus just halfway through the championship. At one point in the 3rd round 14 men were under par -- that number is dropping faster with each shot played thus far in the final round. Try to realize this -- the USGA has cut the overall distance of the Black to just over 7,200 yards and that includes a 139-yard par-3 14th and two tees pushed up for possible big time tee shots (e.g. the 6th and 18th). Despite all the talk about the Black playing soft -- the USGA has actually made the course play as fair as they can despite the massive H20 that has fallen and the course has held up really well. Where you base your conclusion upon the set-up for the championship is unknown to me since you weighed in when the event had not played out to conclusion. The Black is doing very well even though the greens have been dart boards if played correctly.
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.
RESPONSE ... Phil, you are making a generalized conclusion when the event has not been played to its fullest. You are doing the ole race track response in saying look at who's front when the race has not reached the top of the stretch. My point was that vaunted Oakmont was believed to be a sheer terror that no one could penetrate. Whether the record was singular or not -- the mere idea that scoring could be had -- by Miller and Nelson -- lef the USGA to overdue things to the max of maxes with the '74 event at WF/W
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.
RESPONSE ... Phil, the weather MADE the course easier to the fullest. The USGA had prepared the course properly -- allowing a healthy mix between difficult and impossible. In addition, the USGA has made the course more playable and guess what is happening -- less and less people are shooting anything close to what they did for the first 36 holes. If the USGA went to the max with 7,400+yards it would be a long and boring slog. Mike Davis understands that and I credit the USGA for moving ahead with his overall philosophy for US Open layouts.
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.
RESPONSE ... Phil, WF/W was thought to be over-the-top by many people. Keep in mind the PGA set-up WF/W well for the '97 PGA Champiionship when Love III won with a truly spectacular four round total of 269 -- the first time a winner had won at WF/W with such a low cumulative score. Keep this in mind again -- weather had a great deal to do with the way WF/W and Oakmont played in the '06 and '07 US Opens. BB showed its form in '02 but that's because the course was tighter and even tougher than it needed to be. No doubt there was a fear -- among USGA types -- that the less than compelling greens would allow for the pros to shoot lights out. What BB showed then -- and to a large extent now -- is how compelling the course is from a tee-to-green dynamic. BB has put a premium on solid driving and pinpoint approaches to score low. Watch what happens when such well-played shot don't happen.
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?
RESPONSE ... Phil, you simply state the obvious ... BB demonstrared exactly what you stated above in '02. Does anyone understand what A DELUGE of H20 can do to ANY course? You can't enter NBA comparisons into the mix from a team game to one played by solo performes. Apples and oranges comparison. Let me point out that you didn't mention the Parks win at Oakmont -- the Jones win at OH/S -- the Campbell win at Pinehurst #2 -- shall I go on. You make it sound like Bethpage will crown a champ of far less importance. The course was there for the taking and the big name players -- as of 8:30 PM as I write this have not demonstrated as much. That's to the credit of BB as much as anything else.
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?
RESPONSE ... Phil, you must have missed the rightful smacking of the USGA for what happened in '02. Especially the tee placements at #10 and #12, to name the two most prominent. The USGA hasn't lost their mojo -- they've made it a point to make the unique dimensions of the course come through -- check out the pin at #14 for the final round -- the moving up of the tee boxes at the downhill 6th and 18th holes -- the movement of the tees at the par-4 7th at 489 when it can be stretched to 525 yards. The USGA, through the skills of Mike Davis and the others involved -- have realized that golf needs to have a proper balance between rewarding solid play to the point where good shots of any type are thrwarted time after time. People screamed bloody murder at the set-up of WF/W for the '06 event. Not a birdie could be had by anyone. BB has stood tall, inspite of all the weather and the USGA should be commended in providing for a set-up that allows players to score but not to a point where half-ass shots are rewarded. Just ask Sergio and all the others who have sprayed a bit too much. Just ask Ricky Barnes as he sleeps tonight pondering what he faces from the hay to the left of the 2nd green.