[JNC Lyon]

JNC_Lyon,

The USGA doesn't modify golf courses.

The hosting club is to blame for any modifications.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the USGA was directly responsible for the renovation at Bethpage Black prior to the 2002 US Open.  It did not employ an in-house architect, but it provided some degree of funding.  This was probably a good renovation overall, but it was nevertheless endorsed by the USGA.

In general, though, it is true that the USGA does not modify golf courses.  That was the point for my first post.  Golf clubs would continue to modify their golf courses if they were not shooting for a US Open.  This is because clubs now are shooting at standards set by the USGA.  These standards would be even more uniform and definitive if there were a single site for USGA championships.

[Anthony Butler]

The only correct point in that piece is that the USGA would earn a lot of money.

Not sure what the merchandise take is for the Open, but you would think US Open hat/shirt sales might be down if the only detail that changed each year was the year. Then again, the Masters has very cleverly introduced that trick to goose sales from returning 'patrons'...

Realistically, the appeal of the 'US Open Club" would be hard pressed to match the cachet of ANGC, especially if every hacker in the world could tee it up there for $400. Speaking of which, given the preparations needed to get a US Open site tournament 'ready' and the proposed location in the NYC/DC corridor, there would only be 3 months of prime public play per year for each Open course.

It's a pipe dream. Perhaps best ended by someone hitting Kostis across the back of the head with a length of pipe.

[TEPaul]

"......but the 'point' is that tennis doesn't connect with a lot of people and I think a goodly part of that is due to the fact that they don't take their show on the road."


I think the 'point' why tennis does not connect with a lot of people, or as many as it once did, is not because of the US Open or its venue but the fact that about 40 years ago tennis's national administrative body, the USLTA (which was very similar to what the USGA has always been to American golf administration), essentially lost control of the sport and spun into semi-irrelevency in just a few years.

[George Pazin]

It's a pipe dream. Perhaps best ended by someone hitting Kostis across the back of the head with a length of pipe.

 

It does get a little tiring watching the pros play Shinney, Pebble, Oakmont, Merion...

I also think it would be a guaranteed money LOSER, on many levels.

[Matt_Ward]

If memory serves, I believe when the USGA left NYC to the leafy suburbs of Far Hills, NJ -- there was some initial discussion about buidlingh a permanent course within that immediate area or even on the grounds of the estate as well. It didn't fly and personally I believe the game is better served by rotation of the events to all the different clubs that have since served as hosts -- whether Men's Open or Senior Women's Amateur.

[Jud_T]

I think getting the game to various parts of the country, particularly the "lesser" championships, is invaluable for the local fans, and gives them perhaps a once in a lifetime chance to see some great tracks as well as some great players....

[David Stamm]

I question the logic that the USGA having a permanent home would stop clubs from making awkward modifications in order to keep their courses on the cutting edge.  There are lots of non-championship courses making such changes every year.

But, this will never happen, because the elite clubs are more interested in bringing the Open back to their courses than they are in supporting a USGA golf mecca.

I am with Tom here.  There is much more going on with the changing of courses and blaming the USGA for it.  I believe that many club memberships have egos as large as Trump's and will do nearly anything to remain in the limelight of golf.  That is the way it has always been and I don't see it ending with permanent homes for championships.  Who knows, you could see clubs trying to start up invitational tournies like the Masters.

Ciao

I don't think anyone would deny that there have been plenty of clubs that have changed their courses with nothing whatsoever to do with the USGA, PGA. However, they are the ones designating the architects that do the work, and I can't believe there is anyone here that thinks Jones or Fazio are sympathetic to these classic designs. Once in a while, some good comes of it. I can't deny that Torrey had some good come of it's redo, such the 3rd and 14th holes (the greenside bunkers on 13 not withstanding), but Torrey really didn't have much going on architecturally anyway, so it really didn't matter. On the other hand, the insistence of the USGA to have impossibly quick green speeds on tournament greens that were never designed to have them is an example of how the slippery slope begins. The contours are "toned" down and lose much of their character. So now the greens have lost their defense and they have to "make up for it" elsewhere, ie, addtional bunkers that distort the "line of charm" angles that architect originally intended, narrowed fw mowing lines that have the same said effect and rough that does not allow the player to take a chance. I don't think there should be one permanent home, but several throughout the country in key regions such as Torrey in the SW, Chambers Bay to the NW, Cog Hill/Erin Hills in the Mid West, BPB in the east and few others.



There are plenty of elite clubs that have not hosted and will never host championship golf events and have taken great care of their courses such as Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Valley Club, Maidstone and scores of others. And there have been clubs that do host championships that seem to have done wonderful jobs, such as Oakmont.


I agree, Sean, some of these egos at some of these clubs (with nothing to do with attracting a tournament) are the core reason why some of these great courses are picked away at with the results being a "nose job" that wasn't done right to begin with and numerous surgeries that follow to try and fix the first one and turns the hole thing into a disaster. California probably leads the nation in this regard.

[TEPaul]

"-- there was some initial discussion about buidlingh a permanent course within that immediate area or even on the grounds of the estate as well. It didn't fly....."


Actually Matt, it is beginning to fly even if something like a very old Phoenix. The 18th green was built last year and brought into play this year (it sits directly behind Golf House) and so in another hundred years or so we can probably expect the rest of the greens and holes and the course to be done and in play as well. The raising of the money for the project is quite interesting in that for a minimum contribution of $10,000 you too can have a contour on one of the greens named after yourself. You may even be allowed to contribute to the concept and construction of it but I wouldn't completely count on that piece. The better route is to simply pick one and then make your appropriate contribution. Pat Mucci has already contributed $1,227,051.19! He thinks he will be able to design his own entire green for that. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how one looks at it, I'm the one who has been selected to break the bad news to him that that will never happen and that he will also never get a red cent of his contributed money back!

[Dan Boerger]

Inane idea, IMO.

One of the primary reasons golf competition is so interesting is because of the variety of courses they play on. That it poses logistical and monetary issues is really of no concern to me, the viewer and consumer. The reason GCA -- heck all architecture -- is interesting is because there are lots of varieties. Celebrate the diversity, don't take it away.

[Jud_T]

Dan,

do you therefore find the Masters uninteresting because they play the same track each year?

[Mike Benham]

TEPaul,
They never moved around (3 or 4 venues in 100 years) like golf's US Open, but the 'point' is that tennis doesn't connect with a lot of people and I think a goodly part of that is due to the fact that they don't take their show on the road.

Tennis does take its show on the road, every week throughout the year (sans a few breaks).  In fact, one can argue that the tennis ruling body (there is only one unlike golf) has done a better job making the sports a true INTERNATIONAL sport as their tour stops are all over the world.

And tennis' four majors are in different countries and 3 different continents, unlike golf ...

Which organization has done a better job of supporting the game, the USTA or USGA?

[Dan Boerger]

Jud - Augusta National is a wonderful course, but I do indeed find the Masters tournament a "somewhat" less interesting tournament than the US Open, British Open or the PGA precisely because it's always held at the same location. It's still a great test of golf and loads of fun to watch however.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,
This was strictly about each sports US Opens.

US Open tennis has lost one third of its TV viewership(USA/Neilsen) in the past 15 years, so you tell me who does the better job.

[Jud_T]

Dan,

while I also enjoy seeing a variety of courses hold championships, I think the Masters is interesting, I'd rank it second behing the Open Championship, in part BECAUSE it's held at the same venue...The fact that Joe 6-pack knows the course from repeated viewing adds to the intrigue on the back nine on Sunday....

[TEPaul]

"Tennis does take its show on the road, every week throughout the year (sans a few breaks).  In fact, one can argue that the tennis ruling body (there is only one unlike golf) has done a better job making the sports a true INTERNATIONAL sport as their tour stops are all over the world."


MikeB:

Tennis's ruling body has done a better job than golf's ruling bodies by making the sport a true INTERNATIONAL sport how so?

Are you just talking about the USTA or the world wide tennis Tour (essentially all professional players) or are you talking about whether or not tennis' ruling body has promoted more tennis players around the world compared to the amount of golfers who play the game around the world due in some or many ways to the sort of vertical integration through golf of even the USGA and R&A?

There is a big, big difference when one begins to break it down and really analyze it.

I really don't know about this----eg the statistics of tennis, but something tells me there are far fewer tennis players around the world than there were perhaps fifty years ago. The same cannot be said of golf I don't believe. So looked at in that context, who's done the better job?

[Jud_T]

Guys,

tennis is a dying sport.  it is too high impact and you have to play someone of your own ability.  also it's played by a bunch of wanks...

[TEPaul]

Jud:

Tennis is not a dying sport even though it may be a sport that has shrunk in popularity compared to what it once was. Even so, tennis is definitely not a sport that ever will or ever can completely die; the reason is its history and reach was and is broad enough to always survive somehow.

The same is true of golf. It may shrink some in popularity for any number of reasons but golf will never die.

It is probably somewhat unfair to both sports to compare their health or popularity at any particular time because even if they may've competed with one another for many many decades for a good many of the same people the fact is their inherent structures are just so different from one another they will always be true apples compared to oranges if one tries to comparatively analyze them.

For instance, just the inherent structure of the game of golf makes it so much more of a "social" game than tennis ever was or could be but tennis benefits from the fact that creating and maintaining tennis courts is so much easier to do than golf courses.

And tournament-wise golf has a hundred mile head start on tennis because of the essential format of stroke play, a form of play that tennis could not possibly have because of its essential match play structure and format.

In this sense alone one really does marvel at what all golf can do tournament-wise (stroke play) essentially because golf is one of the only stick and ball games in history where there is not a common ball that is vied for between human opponents!

[Jud_T]

TEPaul,
 
Hey, I've got no problem with anyone who wants to run around chasing a little white ball, after all that's what golf is! But shouldn't these comments be relegated to TennisAtlas.com?

[Troy Alderson]

I like the idea and don't like the idea.  A permanent home open to the public would be fantastic, but what part of the country gets the complex?  I don't like the idea though because the rotation is nice, much like the British Open.  Rotating each year to a different location and style of golf course more than likely challenges the players more, allowing the opportunity for different players to win.  Having open location could possibly set the course up for one style of play and player.

Troy

[Rob Rigg]

Three course rotation - East Coast, Mid-West, West Coast

1) Men's Pro Championship
2) Women's Pro Championship
3) Amateur Championship

It would be interesting to have three different types of courses that are rotated.

I know that many "classic" courses will continue to ruin themselves by adding distance, etc. but we are reaching the point where having a set rotation of a few courses may actually be beneficial?

I don't think one complex is going to do it - but since the pro events will still be spread out around the country it might be possible to have a set rotation for three courses for the US Open?

[Bob Jenkins]

In the 1970s, The Royal Canadian Golf Association decided to make Glen Abbey, outside Toronto, as the permanent site for the Canadian Open. Between 1977 and 2000, 22 of the 24 Opens were played there, the two exceptions being at Royal Montreal in 1980 and 1997. Since that time, the RCGA has been moving the Open around, primarily in southern Ontario, occasionally at Royal Montreal and once out here on the west coast at Shaughnessy, which will also host the Open in 2011.

I think if you ask anyone in the Toronto area if it was successful to have the Open at Glen Abbey each year, they would be very positive. If you asked any serious golfer in western Canada, they would have been negative. It is also significant that in Canada, there are no other PGA events in additon to the Open. For 7 years starting in the late 90s we had the Greater Vancouver Open, which became the Air Canada Championship before it crashed and burned for lack of a sponsor.  

I am not sure but I think the reasoning for establishing the Open at Glen Abbey was the Augusta effect, ie. a course that to the country and the golfing public elsewhere, becomes recognizable, hopefully in a positive way. As Glen Abbey is owned by the RCGA, there would have been obvious monetary benefits to them and with the population base in southern Ontario, it makes some sense that more revenue would be generated. Those who are cynical simply say that as Toronto purports to be the center of the universe, they were greedy and did not want to spread it around the country. Dale Jackson of this discussion group is on the Board of the RCGA and can probably give more accurate information than I ever could hope to provide and may join in.

Personally, I believe the Open of any country should move around, play classic and modern courses in all locations, so as to show off the entire country and support the golfing communities in all areas. Many believe the Canadian Open should also go to the Prairies (Calgary? Banff?) and the maritimes where there are fine courses but a smaller population. If the US Open were to go to one site, the rest of the country would revolt, rightfully so.

Bob J

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
 Hey, I've got no problem with anyone who wants to run around chasing a little white ball,"


Jug; I'm sorry I mean Jud:

Do you have any problem with someone like me who seems to have gotten to the point where it feels like a little white ball is running around chasing me?

[Jud_T]

TEPaul,

No my friend I do not.  This is why I have distilled, through much trial and error, my ideal amount of alcohol to consume during a round.  I have surmised, for me at least, that one cocktail at the start of the round, as well as 1 more at the turn is the perfect amount of swing juice to imbibe during a round.  Any less is not enough, and any more is a slippery slope.....

[TEPaul]

Well, Jud, apparently you never talked with Tommy Armour about that kind of thing, did you? His ideal cocktail prescription and playing golf differed quite a bit from yours even if his apparently never varied at all. To consider it today is relatively eye-opening or eye closing or shocking or whatever!

By the way, if the subject of the ideal prescription of cocktails and playing golf seemingly has little or nothing to do with the subject of a Permanent home for ALL USGA championships, just give me a bit of time and I really will find a way to tie it all together.

And on a far more important note, Jud, is your real given name something like Judley or at least Judman or his son Judson? I also note you have racked up 102 posts on this website Jud? Don't you think that may be a few too many and that you better start thinking seriously about getting a real life? You should try what I have always done in that vein and practice some good old fashioned abstemiousness. 

[Richard Hetzel]

I don't think that I would like to see a standard site for all USGA championships. I like to see if unfold on different courses. No one "forces" these clubs to accept the US Open, they do it willingly, or they do it for the MONEY.

I cannot see the USGA sinking big $$$ into building 2-3 of their own championship courses either....

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()