[Richard Choi]

I see two of your quotes here that appear conflicting.  Do you prioritize architecture over what you would rather watch on TV?   Did you enjoy watching Torrey Pines on TV?  I did, and though I'd rather play Carlton Oaks up the road, Torrey proved a fine test and was won by a worthy champion. 

No conflict at all. I think you are missing my point that what is interesting on TV does not mean that it is interesting architecturally (it can be, but it is not required).

I would rather watch better architecture on TV (but that does not mean I did not enjoy the drama at Torrey Pines), but I have no idea who has better architectural merits; Medinah or Erin Hills. And since I have no reference on that, only reference I have left is what is more interesting for me to see on TV.

You guys are finding way more meaning in what I am saying.

[Terry Lavin]

I see two of your quotes here that appear conflicting.  Do you prioritize architecture over what you would rather watch on TV?   Did you enjoy watching Torrey Pines on TV?  I did, and though I'd rather play Carlton Oaks up the road, Torrey proved a fine test and was won by a worthy champion. 

You guys are finding way more meaning in what I am saying.

I'll remember that in the future!  JK...

[Adam Clayman]

Steve, if Torrey Pines can host a world class test for its open (and I don't think anybody can argue that it was not exciting), not sure if that is the best indicator for architectural merit.

Richard, World Class tests and excitement can be mutually exclusive. And in the case of TP, I think they are.
 
The goal of the USGA should be to identify the best golfer. In my eyes that is not their focus. They appear to identify just the straightest hitters. Great Golf Course Architecture is way more complex than just hitting the ball straight. Isn;t it?

[Phil McDade]

The goal of the USGA should be to identify the best golfer. In my eyes that is not their focus. They appear to identify just the straightest hitters. Great Golf Course Architecture is way more complex than just hitting the ball straight. Isn;t it?

Adam:

Not true -- Olgivy (winner) and Mickelson (should've won) at Winged Foot, and Cabrera (winner) at Oakmont, all averaged worse than the field in their driving accuracy. Cabrera hit fewer than half the fairways at Oakmont.

[Rob Bice]

Forget TV, the best way to enjoy a tournament is listening to it on Sirius Radio.  Medinah is by far the best course for radio.

Enjoy the US Open and go McIlroy!!

[Terry Lavin]

Forget TV, the best way to enjoy a tournament is listening to it on Sirius Radio.  Medinah is by far the best course for radio.

Enjoy the US Open and go McIlroy!!

Great post!  It would be great to see the young Irishman on the leaderboard on the weekend.

[Garland Bayley]

Steve, if Torrey Pines can host a world class test for its open (and I don't think anybody can argue that it was not exciting), not sure if that is the best indicator for architectural merit.

Richard, World Class tests and excitement can be mutually exclusive. And in the case of TP, I think they are.
 
The goal of the USGA should be to identify the best golfer. In my eyes that is not their focus. They appear to identify just the straightest hitters. Great Golf Course Architecture is way more complex than just hitting the ball straight. Isn;t it?

I wish I knew more about the courses, but French Lick would seem like a location that would be better suited to identify the best golfers.
Prepare the Dye course tight, and the Ross course wide.

Day 1 Players play either 1-9 Dye and 1-9 Ross or 10-18 Dye and 10-18 Ross
Day 2 switches
Day 3 play 1-9 Dye and 1-9 Ross
Day 4 play 10-18 Dye and 10-18 Ross

Dye is the Open Doctor for the Dye course
C&C or Doak or similar is the Open Doctor for the Ross course.

[Bill Seitz]

The goal of the USGA should be to identify the best golfer. In my eyes that is not their focus. They appear to identify just the straightest hitters.

Like Tiger at Torrey? 

I don't think there's a golf tournament on earth that can positively identify "the best golfer".  The best they can do is identify the best golfer in a given four (or sometimes five) days, and even then, that guy probably needs a bit of luck to win.  An exception, of course, would be Tiger at Pebble in 2000. 

Here's my take on what Richard has said (with the caveat that I've played EH, but not Medinah):  Given that he hasn't played either course, and assuming that both Medinah and Erin Hills are both excellent tests of golfing ability for the touring professionals, he would prefer to watch an event at Erin Hills, presumably since every hole doesn't look the same. 

For my own take, I sort of agree with him, and I'll take it a step further and say that the issue with Medinah isn't necessarily that all the holes look the same, but it's sort of a cookie-cutter-looking course, with big trees lining lush fairways, which we see on television quite often.  That has nothing to do with its ability to test the best golfers, which is proven.   

I don't think it needs to be said that when it comes to tournament golf, most of us want to see an event that provides some drama and involves the world's best players, regardless of venue.  I certainly would rather watch Tiger, Phil, Lee, and Rory battle it out over the final holes over a blowout no matter where the tournament is held.  But again, all other things being equal, Richard would prefer to see the Open played over an interesting piece of property, the likes of which we don't see on TV all that much.  At least, that's what I took away from his initial comments.  If that's not accurate, I apologize. 

[Terry Lavin]

The USGA's stated mission with the setup of the Open is to "identify the best player".  I think this happens most of the time, because the setup is typically very difficult and the best players tend to respond best to very difficult examinations.  It often happens, however, that this type of setup can wind up identifying the "luckiest" of "pluckiest" player as opposed to the best player.  A number of players who haven't done much else have won the US Open, including Andy North, who won it twice.  The defending champion is a fair player, but he hasn't done all that much other than win the Open last year.  I doubt that anybody would say Lucas Glover was the best player in the field, but he sure was plucky enough to win.

A more interesting question to me is whether Mike Davis's approach to setup will do a better or worse job of "identifying the best player" than the usually brutal setups of Opens past.  That question will take a while to resolve.

[Richard Choi]

Finally, SOMEBODY understands me around here!

Thanks, Bill!

[Garland Bayley]

Finally, SOMEBODY understands me around here!

Thanks, Bill!

Richard,

I understand you. Unfortunately.

[Phil McDade]

  A number of players who haven't done much else have won the US Open, including Andy North, who won it twice. 

Terry:

I've always thought the usual cliche of the US Open identifying the guy who could hit the most fairways is not necessarily the case, or Fred Funk would've contended a lot more than he did (which is never, I think). Hitting it straight no doubt helps in the US Open, but I've long thought the traditional narrow set-up, with high thick rough, often benefitted "strong" players. Ever met North? Big guy -- 6'-4". Irwin, who played college football at Colorado, wasn't exactly small. Trevino had really strong forearms and thighs. Jack, Tiger, Arnie -- all with very good US Open records -- were/are all powerfully strong players. I could add more with wins or solid showings -- Els, Lehman, even a guy like Jim Thorpe for a brief period had solid US Open runs. Winners like Kite and Pavin won on US Open courses where length and power were negated by very fast&firm conditions.

[Richard Choi]

Phil, you might be on to something. Perhaps the ability to get out of the thick rough (need really strong arms) was a huge factor for a long time. Thank goodness, with graduated rough now that should be a smaller factor.

[Bill Seitz]

Terry:

I've always thought the usual cliche of the US Open identifying the guy who could hit the most fairways is not necessarily the case, or Fred Funk would've contended a lot more than he did (which is never, I think). Hitting it straight no doubt helps in the US Open, but I've long thought the traditional narrow set-up, with high thick rough, often benefitted "strong" players.

Phil:

I seem to remember Ogilvy saying the same thing after his win.  It's somewhat counterintuitive that long hitters who spray the ball a bit should win on a tight setup, but the way he talked about it actually made a lot of sense.  According to Ogilvy, he's used to not being in the fairway all that often.  When it comes to the US Open, a bunch of guys who are always in the fairway now find themselves in the rough much more often than they're used to.  To him, that gave him a bit of an advantage, because now those guys are literally playing on his turf.  When you think about it, he's got a point.  Plus, those guys are generally longer.  If everyone is going to be in the rough, I'd rather be the guy who hits it 320 and in the rough than the guy who hits it 295 and in the rough. 

[Anthony Butler]

I think the membership angle is what's driving it away from the Winged Foot's of the world -- the US Open has become a giant thing, and that's either wonderful (from the standpoint of the Erin Hills folks) or a hassle (rumors of Shinnecock and WFoot membership rebelling against hosting another one -- TCC at Brookline pretty much told the USGA no more...)

I think the president of Winged Foot was ousted for trying to suggesting they take either the 2015 or 2016 Open. As far as TCC goes, after the  Ryder Cup was over, they ended spending a lot of money to make the Town Of Brookline happy again. The town golf course (Putterham Meadows) was used as a parking lot for the RC. For two years after that, it looked like a construction site. It might be safe to say we've seen the last of big time golf at TCC.

[Phil McDade]

Terry:

I've always thought the usual cliche of the US Open identifying the guy who could hit the most fairways is not necessarily the case, or Fred Funk would've contended a lot more than he did (which is never, I think). Hitting it straight no doubt helps in the US Open, but I've long thought the traditional narrow set-up, with high thick rough, often benefitted "strong" players.

Phil:

I seem to remember Ogilvy saying the same thing after his win.  It's somewhat counterintuitive that long hitters who spray the ball a bit should win on a tight setup, but the way he talked about it actually made a lot of sense.  According to Ogilvy, he's used to not being in the fairway all that often.  When it comes to the US Open, a bunch of guys who are always in the fairway now find themselves in the rough much more often than they're used to.  To him, that gave him a bit of an advantage, because now those guys are literally playing on his turf.  When you think about it, he's got a point.  Plus, those guys are generally longer.  If everyone is going to be in the rough, I'd rather be the guy who hits it 320 and in the rough than the guy who hits it 295 and in the rough. 

Interesting comments from Olgivy -- one of the more thoughtful guys on Tour. I could add Cabrera to the list -- I think he hit something like 40 percent of the fairways at Oakmont? It was less than half, and less than the field averaged. But he's really quite strong, and I remember him playing out of the rough often at Oakmont.

[Tim Gavrich]

Makes sense to me about being used to playing from the rough as an advantage at a U.S. Open.  Mickelson was saying that the greens are so firm that they're nearly unhittable with a 9 iron or a pitching wedge from the fairway.  Well, if you can't hold the greens from the fairway, then what's the difference, as long as you can get the club on the ball from the rough?  Missing a green from the fairway after a decent swing is tougher to stomach than missing it from US Open rough.  Makes perfect sense to me.

Anyway, back to topic.  The most interesting thing I see from giving the 2015 Open to Chambers Bay and the 2017 Open to Erin Hills is that all of a sudden, the USGA is awarding their top championship to very new courses.  What's the "newest" course to host a fairly recent US Open?  I guess the renovation of Bethpage Black makes it new-ish, but other than that, I see Hazeltine, built in 1962, having hosted the 1991 Open.  It just strikes me as abrupt and a bit odd.

[Richard Choi]

Tim isn't that just because Chambers Bay and Erin Hills are pretty unique? I mean, how many high quality true links golf courses near metropolitan areas are there? Most of the courses produced between 60's to 90's were more variations on classic parkland courses, and there are plenty of the old-school (and superior) courses of that ilk wanting to host a US Open.

If you want something like what CB and EH offers, you have what, about handful of classics? Many of whom have no desire to host a US Open?

[Garland Bayley]

Tim,

You are correct about Hazeltine. It is the only other departure from established courses in the history of the Open.

As for why choose them now. See my earlier post #73 on what the USGA is looking for now.

[JR Potts]

Tim:

It actually makes perfect sense when you think about it.  It's all abount $$$$.

The USGA and PGA, for years, had a pretty good partnership with their host clubs.  They would split the gate and hospitality, the home course would take the lion share of the merchandise, the PGA or USGA would get the TV, the host club would get food/beverage and host course would pay the purse.  This arrangement worked for a long time....until Tiger.

Now, the pursuits of the host club and the PGA/USGA has diverged - making hosting events for private courses, a very difficult sell to its members.  The fact is, the host club doesn't make much money - certainly not enough for a lot of memberships to give up theri course.  The USGA/PGA invariably gives away so many tickets that their "partnership" on the gate is sham.  Second, they keep raising the purses taking away from the bottom line of the host club.  And finally, they won't share the TV.

So, this currect set-up makes it very easy for private memberships to vote down opens and shun events.  Afterall, is 1-2 million profit really enough to placate a membership who lost their course for half the summer?  

For public clubs - the allure of hosting a major can be chalked up as advertising.  There are no members to placate and it's national advertising.  For private clubs, without a lot of money to decrease monthly payments or perform needed capital projects, it's just no longer worth it for many.

That's really what's going on....

[Phil McDade]

Tim,

You are correct about Hazeltine. It is the only other departure from established courses in the history of the Open.

Um, no.

Hazeltine first hosted the US Open in 1970, less than a decade after it opened. The USGA did the same thing with Northwood in Dallas (1952), Bellerive (1965), Champions (1969), and Atlanta Athletic Club (1976) -- all selected for play a decade or less after their openings.

[Garland Bayley]

Tim,

You are correct about Hazeltine. It is the only other departure from established courses in the history of the Open.

Um, no.

Hazeltine first hosted the US Open in 1970, less than a decade after it opened. The USGA did the same thing with Northwood in Dallas (1952), Bellerive (1965), Champions (1969), and Atlanta Athletic Club (1976) -- all selected for play a decade or less after their openings.

If you are correct, then I stand corrected. The info I related was the buzz that went out after Chambers Bay was selected.

[Mike Wagner]

Well, I just got here today....and I have to say the course looks FANTASTIC!!

I'm not saying this because I work there, really, it looks unbelievable.  The tree removal is so dramatic, it's changed the look and feel for those who have played there.  The fescue is coming in, condition is rapidly improving, paths are being changed so players can't see them (just for maintenance).  I was in love with it last year (warts and all), and it's waaaay better today. 

EH is an Open course, pure and simple.  It was a pretty cool day for us out there.

Look forward to putting together a GCA event later this year.

[Richard Choi]

If only thing US Open cared about was money, Chambers Bay and Erin Hills are not the courses that they would pick. There are plenty of more moneyed clubs both public and private that would offer up more money for USGA. Hell, if money was everything, Trump would have hosted 3 or 4 by now.

USGA is trying to encourage a certain style of golf courses. Chambers Bay and Erin Hills fit that profile. No need to bring more sinister reasons.

[Adam Clayman]

Richard, Great thoughts indeed. From your mouth...

Ryan, Thanx for that real world explanation of how it breaks down. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()