How can a single one of you make a case that something was done poorly, or incorrectly, as far as a course set up goes?
Michael:
I'll track a crack at it (assuming I might be one of the YOU's referred to in the thread.....)
I think the Black is an Open-worthy course. But I don't think it's among the top tier of US Open courses -- to me, it has some weaknesses, and isn't quite the US Open course that Oakmont, Winged Foot and Shinnecock are.
I like the ying and yang of the course -- some very tough holes are mixed in with holes that can be attacked, and yield birdies and even the occasional eagle. Some holes (4, 5, 15 come immediately to mind) really appear to use interesting playing angles and varied terrain to great effect -- a real test of shotmaking. And they are visually striking. But others, like 16, look less so, with long drives and approaches over flattish terrain. Challenging, sure, just not exhilirating or cause for thinking on the tee. I'm hesitant to criticize the greens, as green contours and tilts are very hard to pick up on the flat TV screen. But I think it's fair to say the greens at the Black (15 a notable exception) hold less interest than those of Oakmont and WF in particular. And I'd argue today's players, given their length, along with ball and club technology, demand that US Open courses have really challenging greens, with the real possibility of three-putts (Miller commented that the greens at the Black were difficult if not impossible to three-putt, given their lack of contour. I'll concede the rain denuded them to some extent, but I'd argue the point remains -- the Black's greens are not in a class of many other US Open sites.)
I continue to argue the Black's set-up for this Open deserves some scrutiny. The course yielded 46 sub-par rounds the first two days, several 64s, 65s, and 66s, and a record-low 36-hole score -- most of those shot by golfers hardly among the elite of today's game. Not scrutinizing and asking questions about the Black and its set-up, in my view, is a disservice to this Discussion Board, which at its best always questions conventional wisdom about golf architecture. The knee-jerk reaction of many of the Black's defenders on this board suggests such scrutiny may have struck a chord, and there have been some dispassionate posters (who, unlike me, have played the Black and observed first-hand this Open) who have similarly questioned aspects of the course set-up. Many who defend the Black blame the rain exclusively for the low scores posted the first two days; I'd argue the soft conditions could have been overcome those two days with a tougher set-up, and questioned whether Mike Davis' philosophy of a more benign set-up was more vulnerable to low scores with the possibility of rain and soft conditions.
As for particulars about the set-up:
-- A par 5 characterized by many who have played and defended the Black as one of the game's great par 5s -- the 4th -- was effectively neutered for this tournament, yielding four times as many birdies/eagles as bogies/doubles, largely by moving the tees up. (Hole average for four days: 4.753) If, as many have suggest, the Black's greatness really begins on the 4th hole, shouldn't that hole be a tougher test than the 4th was for this Open?
-- The short, downhill par 3 14th had a final-round pin position set at under 130 yards (a wedge) to a portion of a green that was -- what -- five yards by five yards? Is that really what a back-nine par 3 in the final round at the US Open should be about? It had "gimmicky" written all over it.
-- The final hole in the final round at the Black led to the winner pulling out a 6-iron, then a 9-iron, to win the tournament. The 18th has been discussed in mulitple threads here; I'll just stand by my previous view that that's hardly a worthy test for the final hole of a US Open.
In short, as one interested in the architecure of major-championship golf courses, I like the Black. But it's not a top-tier US Open course, from where I sit.