SOME OF YOU ARE DRIVING ME INSANE OVER THE U.S. OPEN!!!

[Kalen Braley]

Michael,

Agreed about the pros capabilities with irons and otherwise.  I still think that even if they had used the back tee on Monday, with it playing downwind, Glover could have easily hit 3 iron for placement.  And maybe he would have had a 8 iron approach instead of 9 iron....but for these guys 8 or 9 iron makes no difference.

More so than the actual hole, I think "72nd hole at the US Open" pressure would get to any player more than what the hole setup is. And without going all Shivas here, how is this much different than 18 at Olympic?  Or the old 18th at Congressional?

The real irony is that, with all the GCA.com bitching and moaning about typical long slog 18th hole setups the PGA Tour gives us week in and week out, the USGA does something different and now all of a sudden everyone wishes it was a long par 4 that they seemingly despise..go figure.

[tlavin]

The golf course is surely Open worthy.  They did a credible job with set-up although the short par 3 and the shortening of 18 are surely debatable decisions.  The simple truth is that the rain ruined the event.  It was pure drudgery to watch and it produced a vanilla champion, the second coming of Steve Jones.  There were more talented players who didn't rise to the occasion, but Glover will surely go down as one of the least compelling winners in quite a while.

[Anthony Gray]

  What's not to like about BPB? If it were private the access whores would be beating the door down.

  Anthony

[Garland Bayley]

  What's not to like about BPB? If it were private the access whores would be beating the door down.

  Anthony

Amen to that!

[Garland Bayley]

...
-- 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: 4.481) 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?
...

Phil,

Is there any 517 yard par 5 in the world that would have yielded an average as high as 4.481 while being continually inundated by rain throughout the tournament and for a month before the tournament?

Consider that #7 at 525 yards yielded an average of 4.355 for the tournament. If you cannot see the greatness of the fourth at BB, then that is your problem, not ours.

[Phil McDade]

Kalen:

The USGA should do something different than the PGA Tour -- they should make the US Open harder, a lot harder. Especially as players near the end of their rounds and tournament, like the back nine on Sunday/Monday. The green at Olympic is a much smaller target, with a much more pronounced slope, than the Black's. I also believe the drive at Olympic is much more problematic, with a severely canted fairway that begs the player to go left, where further trouble lies -- not the punchbowl gathering fairway of the 18th at the Black. If you're referring to the 18th hole finisher at Congressional for the Open won Els -- well, I'd have a hard time deciding which closer (the Black's or Congressional's) was worse. Even Tiger took shots at the par 3 18th closer at Congressional, which he rarely does about architecture and set-up.

[Kalen Braley]

Phil,

Are you suggesting that BPB is an "easier" setup than most of the PGA tour venues because the 18th hole is not a "tough par" hole?  Did you forget to look at the previous 17 holes and how difficult many of them are?

I would much rather see these guys play a tough course over 18 holes, than see them play a bland vanilla course with medium difficulty holes and finish with a bruiser 18th hole, but thats just my preference.  I guess I've just never bought in to this unwritten rule that the final hole must be a brute.

So I think the USGA has accomplished its goal of doing something different because I can't think of any other tour stop that even comes close to the consitently low winning scores of the US Open...this year included.

[Michael Dugger]

The golf course is surely Open worthy.  They did a credible job with set-up although the short par 3 and the shortening of 18 are surely debatable decisions.  The simple truth is that the rain ruined the event.  It was pure drudgery to watch and it produced a vanilla champion, the second coming of Steve Jones.  There were more talented players who didn't rise to the occasion, but Glover will surely go down as one of the least compelling winners in quite a while.

Totally agree, I thought Steve Jones too!!!

The way they were always a day behind, wrapping up the following morning. 

Then going back out and playing like two holes.

It stunk

[Phil McDade]

...
-- 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: 4.481) 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?
...

Phil,

Is there any 517 yard par 5 in the world that would have yielded an average as high as 4.481 while being continually inundated by rain throughout the tournament and for a month before the tournament?

Consider that #7 at 525 yards yielded an average of 4.355 for the tournament. If you cannot see the greatness of the fourth at BB, then that is your problem, not ours.

Kalen:

First, a correction. I misread Sweeney's chart on the other thread; the 4th played to an average of 4.753, easiest hole on the course.

Comments: The 4th does strike me as a great hole. It's visually arresting, and Tillie's use of angles, enormous bunkering, and the gradual rise of the hole to a sharply uphill offset green is really terrific work. But the hole's statistics -- 3 eagles and 153 birdies, compared to 34 bogeys and 7 doubles -- suggest (strongly, to me) -- suggest that, for this Open, it played as a birdie-able par 5 with little risk of a bad number (a 4:1 ratio of under to over-par outcomes). Why didn't the USGA keep the tees back, instead of moving them forward, to make this a true risk-reward hole, or simply make it a brute of a par 5, a tough par? Why make one of the Black's best holes -- really, its signature hole, the one that I'm guessing most players (the muni guys sleeping in the lot, not the Open competitors) talk about first when they replay their rounds over beers -- a pushover (relative to the other holes on the course)? Where's the thrill in a hole that yields easy pars, a bunch of birdies, hardly any eagles, and little trouble?

[Kalen Braley]

...
-- 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: 4.481) 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?
...

Phil,

Is there any 517 yard par 5 in the world that would have yielded an average as high as 4.481 while being continually inundated by rain throughout the tournament and for a month before the tournament?

Consider that #7 at 525 yards yielded an average of 4.355 for the tournament. If you cannot see the greatness of the fourth at BB, then that is your problem, not ours.

Kalen:

First, a correction. I misread Sweeney's chart on the other thread; the 4th played to an average of 4.753, easiest hole on the course.

Comments: The 4th does strike me as a great hole. It's visually arresting, and Tillie's use of angles, enormous bunkering, and the gradual rise of the hole to a sharply uphill offset green is really terrific work. But the hole's statistics -- 3 eagles and 153 birdies, compared to 34 bogeys and 7 doubles -- suggest (strongly, to me) -- suggest that, for this Open, it played as a birdie-able par 5 with little risk of a bad number (a 4:1 ratio of under to over-par outcomes). Why didn't the USGA keep the tees back, instead of moving them forward, to make this a true risk-reward hole, or simply make it a brute of a par 5, a tough par? Why make one of the Black's best holes -- really, its signature hole, the one that I'm guessing most players (the muni guys sleeping in the lot, not the Open competitors) talk about first when they replay their rounds over beers -- a pushover (relative to the other holes on the course)? Where's the thrill in a hole that yields easy pars, a bunch of birdies, hardly any eagles, and little trouble?

Phil,

I think you meant to address this last comment to Garland....

But since I'm here, I too wondered why #4 was playing so short during the Open as I thought it was a much longer hole than 517 which I saw on the graphic while watching.  I think it would have worked well to move up the tees on one day or maybe two, but by all means it seems they should have played it all the way back for at least two rounds.

[Phil McDade]

...I always get you two guys mixed up; hasn't someone fixed up a grudge match sometime soon?

[Phil McDade]

I believe the Alps hole at the Reverse Jans has a better risk-reward ratio than the 4th at the Black had for the US Open. But I gotta check the stats first....

[Anthony Gray]

...I always get you two guys mixed up; hasn't someone fixed up a grudge match sometime soon?

 
  To be confused as Garland. You have hit rock bottom Kalen.

  Bill Mcbride

[Garland Bayley]

...
-- 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: 4.481) 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?
...

Phil,

Is there any 517 yard par 5 in the world that would have yielded an average as high as 4.481 while being continually inundated by rain throughout the tournament and for a month before the tournament?

Consider that #7 at 525 yards yielded an average of 4.355 for the tournament. If you cannot see the greatness of the fourth at BB, then that is your problem, not ours.

Kalen:

First, a correction. I misread Sweeney's chart on the other thread; the 4th played to an average of 4.753, easiest hole on the course.

Comments: The 4th does strike me as a great hole. It's visually arresting, and Tillie's use of angles, enormous bunkering, and the gradual rise of the hole to a sharply uphill offset green is really terrific work. But the hole's statistics -- 3 eagles and 153 birdies, compared to 34 bogeys and 7 doubles -- suggest (strongly, to me) -- suggest that, for this Open, it played as a birdie-able par 5 with little risk of a bad number (a 4:1 ratio of under to over-par outcomes). Why didn't the USGA keep the tees back, instead of moving them forward, to make this a true risk-reward hole, or simply make it a brute of a par 5, a tough par? Why make one of the Black's best holes -- really, its signature hole, the one that I'm guessing most players (the muni guys sleeping in the lot, not the Open competitors) talk about first when they replay their rounds over beers -- a pushover (relative to the other holes on the course)? Where's the thrill in a hole that yields easy pars, a bunch of birdies, hardly any eagles, and little trouble?

Phil,

Clearly, you don't understand easiest. Clearly #14 was the easiest hole on the course! Do not confuse lowest stroke average under par as the easiest!

Since it was shorter than a par 4. Let's call it a par 4. Clearly then it was the most difficult hole on the course by it's stroke average over 4. 

Hole quality is not measured by stroke average!

[Sam Maryland]

Or this list:
Tom Creavy, Olin Dutra, Walter Burkemo, Chick Harbert, Herman Keiser, IBFinch, Todd Hamilton, Paul Lawrie, Ben Curtis, Bill Rogers

Match 'em up:

Tom Lehman
Bill Rogers
Steve Jones
Ben Curtis

A)  1 major + 7 PGA Tour wins = 8
 
B)  1 major + 2 PGA Tour wins = 3
 
C)  1 major + 4 PGA Tour wins = 5
 
D)  1 major + 6 PGA Tour wins = 7

[Mark Pritchett]

I think Ben Curtis has 3, Lehman 5, not sure on the other two.

I'll guess

Tom L  (C)
Bill R.    (D)
Steve J (A)
Ben C   (B)

[Sam Maryland]

I think Ben Curtis has 3, Lehman 5, not sure on the other two.

I'll guess

Tom L  (C)
Bill R.    (D)
Steve J (A)
Ben C   (B)

Bingo.  Funny how Lehman never shows up on these lists of players who "lucked out" or were somehow underserving.  He's had a reasonably solid and lengthy career but I bet Lucas Glover ends up with double the wins of Lehman, if not more.  I'm not saying Lehman or any other player was undeserving but if lists of this type are going to be made sure seems like he's a candidate.

Here's another comparison I thought was interesting:

Lanny Wadkins: 1 Major + 20 PGA Tour wins = 21
       Tom Kite: 1 Major + 18 PGA Tour wins = 19
Ben Crenshaw: 2 Majors + 19 PGA Tour wins = 21
Curtis Strange: 2 Majors + 15 PGA Tour wins = 17
     Hal Sutton: 1 Major + 13 PGA Tour wins = 14
 Tom Lehman: 1 Major + 4 PGA Tour wins = 5
  Paul Azinger: 1 Major + 11 PGA Tour wins = 11  
  Corey Pavin: 1 Major + 14 PGA Tour wins = 15

Anything jump out at you there?

Winning on the Black will give Lucas a TON of confidence I think.  He was the next guy on the list for at least one Ryder Cup team and possibly two.  I suspect this win breaks the dam loose for Lucas...

[Jim_Kennedy]

Bryon Vincent,
I was being facetious with my 'list'. Anyone who has done the work required to earn a spot in the US Open is a winner, and the guy who does it best that week is our national champion for the year. He is identified as the best golfer because it's not just about four days of golf, it's about the totality of getting to that place in time, and then winning.

The pencil jockeys in the press who would diss a winner as somehow 'unworthy' would be puking on their FootJoys if they heard "Now on the tee, from..... "

[Tim Pitner]

Tom Lehman's win total was pretty modest but, at the time he won the Open at Lytham, he might have been the best player in the world.  I don't think you can say that about Steve Jones, Todd Hamilton, Ben Curtis, etc.  Lehman very nearly won 2-3 U.S. Opens and was a force in the Ryder Cup.  It is surprising he only won 5 times. 

However Lucas Glover's career turns out, I don't like the practice of evaluating a course or a tournament according to who won the event.  Would you judge Bethpage differently if Mickelson had won instead of Glover?  It might have been a better story, but the fact is that this year's event was screwy because of the weather.  Royal St. George's if Bjorn had won instead of Curtis?  Royal Troon if Els had won instead of Hamilton? 

This notion of supposedly fluke winners bothers me too.  Ben Curtis, for example, has turned out to be a very solid player.  Someone like Michael Campbell has been, on and off, a world-class player for some time.  The only tournament I can recall where the set-up really skewed the result was Carnoustie and, even there, you have to give credit to Van de Velde for having played well for 71 holes on a brutal course and to Lawrie for putting up a good number on Sunday and hitting one of the best long iron shots I've ever seen on #18 in the playoff.