US Women's Open 2010 - Oakmont - thread

[Jason Topp]

I really have enjoyed watching the women's US Open the last few years, particularly from an architectural standpoint.  I can much more easily relate the way the women play to my own game.  

--They play generally play more interesting courses that do not need to be lengthened or set up uniquely to present a difficult challenge.

- While any entrant in the field would kick my hind end, I can much more easily relate my own game to the way they play.

-- The players hit the ball a wide variety of distances.  Wie and Petterson hit it miles past me, most hit it distances reasonably similar to my length, some are very short off the tee.

-- They cannot rely on spin to the same extent as the men - making the contours much more important than they are for men.  At Oakmont, shots to greens take forever to stop.

 - The players' short games are very good but not nearly as good as the men so you get a great view of how a difficult set up strains their abilities in that area.

-  The gap between the best amateurs and professionals is not as wide so there usually seems to be an amateur in contention.  

-  You get more varied human interest storied if you pay attention.  Watching that amateur yesterday (Shean) with her boyfriend/caddie having no idea what to do on a golf course was fun but also a potential disaster.  She taught him how to rake a bunker on one hole and he has no idea how to tend a flag - he nearly stumbled into her ball on 18 as it meandered past the hole. Her interview after the round was a refreshing reaction to an exciting day - rather than a media coached set of banalities so common on the men's tour.

- There are more apparent strategic mistakes.  On one par three - a very high percentage of players hit it in a deep bunker short right of the pin from which a par seemed to be beyond their abilities.  Very few players hit it to the wide side.  (Kerr was an exception).

- The women have a very difficult time coping with the rough, which is certainly my experience with significant rough.

-  The women are very good.  They generally shot low scores at Interlachen (compared to par).  That course generally eats my lunch.

-  I wish the networks and the LPGA could be more effective at humanizing the Asian players for US audiences.  It appears there are some interesting personalities there that should be brought out.  I can't even name names but the woman who won at Interlachen seems like a wonderful person as well as the woman who has generally been leading the money list this year.  

This is a special event at Oakmont.

[Phil McDade]

Jason:

Something I thought I'd never see here -- a thoughtful and well-written post about women's golf. Nicely done.

[Rob Miller]

On Wednesday, I stepped onto Oakmont for the first time.  For someone that grew up in Pittsburgh it was a special moment.  It was about 6 am, the sun was coming up and the entrance to the course bisects the 3rd hole.  I worked and spent two days on the first hole.  Some thoughts on the course and the Women's Open:

At first glance walking to the first, it looks fairly straightforward.  Medium length par four, slightly downhill.  Bunkers in play on both sides of the fairway.  After watching hundreds of shots and exactly ONE birdie, I gained a serious respect and even fear of the hole.  There is so little room for error if you want to get the ball close.  Land it on the green, it's off the back of the green.  Land it short in the middle, it's off the back.  Land it short left, it's off the left side.  Land it short right and get too healthy a shot, it's off the back. 

My favorite moment was three very Pittsburgh guys sitting in chairs on the shaded side of the fairway, drinking beer and giggling as balls rolled of the green.  They were out of earshot of the players but enjoying themselves betting if it would be short, off left or off over. 

The rough is shorter than member play and of course significantly shorter than the men's open.  The set up seems challenging but fair. 

I actually really enjoyed watching the women play.  No need to repeat Jason's comments, but count me as a fan.  The women were exceedingly nice and seem to really appreciate support.  The only major downside is pace of play was glacially slow.  I'm sure that Oakmont and temperatures in the mid-90s is partly to blame, but still painfully slow.   

[JNagle]

Jason,

Great post.  Your comments are the very same we heard from a friend on Tuesday at the practice round. 

Ron,

The funniest thing about your post was the statement "three Pittsburgh guys".  Living in the region for twelve plus years now, I can fully envision their attire and personal appearance and of course their goon-natured fun loving personalities.  You should have walked over and asked them if they were from Cleveland.

[Steve Kline]

For one fo the few times I really enjoyed watching women's golf yesterday. I even DVRed it to make sure I could watch it. Of course I did this because they were playing Oakmont. I thought the camera work in yesterday's coverage was fantastic. I saw angles and shots that really highlighted the architecture that I don't remember seeing in '07 for the men's open. There were a couple shots of the 18th were I was stunned at the movement in the green. There was another shot of someone hitting to the first. The ball landed short and rolled to the middle of the green and looked like it would stop. Then it picked up speed at an amazing rate and went over. That course looked like it would be a blast to play.

[George Pazin]

Nice posts, JT and RM.

Jason, I can't relate to the women at all - they are too damn straight. And their legs are much nicer.

Can't wait to get out there, but work is intruding right now.

[Jerry Kluger]

It was interesting looking at the scoring on each hole and numbers 1 and 18 are the highest scoring at nearly 5 strokes on these par 4s.  I would imagine that takes a psychological toll as the player starts off and ends on what could be a very difficult situation. 

[Jud_T]

Jason,

Great post.  One thing to add.  Women's events are infinitely better to attend than PGA Tour events which are a zoo and to be avoided at all costs...

[Mike McGuire]

Seems to me the women keep it in play very well but dont seem to make anything and to often have long second putts.

Are the men better putters and if yes how much better?

edit: I watched way more of this than the men in Scotland or at the JD

[Bill_McBride]

It was interesting looking at the scoring on each hole and numbers 1 and 18 are the highest scoring at nearly 5 strokes on these par 4s.  I would imagine that takes a psychological toll as the player starts off and ends on what could be a very difficult situation. 

I think that was true the several times I played there too!  And #10 is right there as well,  as is #15, four of the toughest par 4s anywhere.

[Carl Johnson]

I've seen Oakmont on TV any number of times, going back at least to the Johnny Miller Open in 1973, and most recently the 2007 U.S. Open.  However, until watching coverage of the women yesterday (I'm retired so I can do this sort of thing on a weekday afternoon) on Golf Channel, I don't recall ever really "seeing" Oakmont.  I thought the camera work was excellent.  Is it my new 42 inch HDTV?  Is it the deforestation, although as I recall that was well underway in 2007.  It would be too much of a course for me, but it's fun to look at.  Beyond that, I enjoyed the commentary of both Judy Rankin and Curtis Strange.  I can't wait to tune in again later this afternoon.

[Carl Rogers]

One of the best threads in a while!

Very good comment Mr. Topp. 

I am beginning to think that the Women's pro game should be the benchmark to study and evaluate GCA.

[Michael Huber]

Weather update:

Although my place of employment is probably a good 20 miles from oakmont, it's raining pretty good right now.  If it is raining like this in Oakmont, you can kiss firm and fast goodbye.

[Brent Hutto]

Seems to me the women keep it in play very well but dont seem to make anything and to often have long second putts.

Are the men better putters and if yes how much better?

edit: I watched way more of this than the men in Scotland or at the JD

The best collegiate and amateur male players I've seen in person (during competition) are definitely better putters than the fairly small number of LPGA Tour players I've seen play in person. And a good male amateur is a far, far better chipper than the typical LPGA Tour player.

None of which has any basis in male/female physiology that I can imagine. It's gotta be just a matter of a long-term deeper talent pool and level of competition.

[Chris Flamion]

I am beginning to think that the Women's pro game should be the benchmark to study and evaluate GCA.

I am in firm agreement on this.  I think the LPGA player is many many times more relate able to the average golfer. 

[Jason Topp]

Seems to me the women keep it in play very well but dont seem to make anything and to often have long second putts.

Are the men better putters and if yes how much better?

edit: I watched way more of this than the men in Scotland or at the JD

The best collegiate and amateur male players I've seen in person (during competition) are definitely better putters than the fairly small number of LPGA Tour players I've seen play in person. And a good male amateur is a far, far better chipper than the typical LPGA Tour player.

Pelz has a bunch of stats on this in his "Bible" books. I think you are overestimating the ability of male amateurs but will take a look at his stats when I get the chance.

[Brent Hutto]

By "amateur" I don't mean club players. I mean the caliber of players who can make it to match play at the US or UK Amateur Championships. So perhaps I should have said "top amateurs".

[George Pazin]

Pelz has a bunch of stats on this in his "Bible" books. I think you are overestimating the ability of male amateurs but will take a look at his stats when I get the chance.

For an ex-NASA scientist, Pelz isn't much of a scientist...

Haven't looked in his books in awhile, but he rarely mentions variables that can't be accounted for in his stats. You can't compare men's amateur stats with women's pro stats because they're not playing in the same events under the same conditions.

I'm probably 15 miles from Oakmont. We got very little rain. Even though it appears they got more, unless it persists, the brief rain will only have a limited effect, imho.

[Jim Nugent]

The best collegiate and amateur male players I've seen in person (during competition) are definitely better putters than the fairly small number of LPGA Tour players I've seen play in person. And a good male amateur is a far, far better chipper than the typical LPGA Tour player.

None of which has any basis in male/female physiology that I can imagine. It's gotta be just a matter of a long-term deeper talent pool and level of competition.

Why do you assume the talent pool and level of competition is the correct answer?   

[George Pazin]

I'm probably 15 miles from Oakmont. We got very little rain. Even though it appears they got more, unless it persists, the brief rain will only have a limited effect, imho.

Well this guy's clearly an idiot, they just called play for the day...

[Brent Hutto]

Because when I look at the strength, coordination, size, endurance and any other ability I can think of required to putt as well as a PGA Tour pro I don't see any advantage that a man has over a woman. So there seems to be a learned set of skills that the best men golfers have acquired that very few of the best women golfers exhibit.

I don't think the women just don't want to putt and chip well (now admittedly clubhead speed and arm strength is a minor advantage in chipping, unlike putting) so there is obviously either a) some selection pressure operating differently between elite men and women golfers or b) the best women are drawn from a smaller population than the best men in which case the narrow tail of the putting-skill (and chipping-skill) distribution has fewer notable savants.

But I'm open to other rational explanations.

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Good question on the putting skills -- I see it quite simply as this -- the top 100 players on the PGA Tour are better than the top putter in the woman's game. No contest -- in terms of putts holed and the wherewithal to avoid 3-putts more consistently.

[MargaretC]

Because when I look at the strength, coordination, size, endurance and any other ability I can think of required to putt as well as a PGA Tour pro I don't see any advantage that a man has over a woman. So there seems to be a learned set of skills that the best men golfers have acquired that very few of the best women golfers exhibit.

I don't think the women just don't want to putt and chip well (now admittedly clubhead speed and arm strength is a minor advantage in chipping, unlike putting) so there is obviously either a) some selection pressure operating differently between elite men and women golfers or b) the best women are drawn from a smaller population than the best men in which case the narrow tail of the putting-skill (and chipping-skill) distribution has fewer notable savants.


Brent, this is a gross generalization; however, I think men typically do a better job of reading greens -- men typically have stronger spatial skills as well as stronger skills in judging distances.  I see those differences between our sons and 2 of our daughters.  Our third daughter is very strong in math and science.  Her short game is great for her age.

I loved geometry.  My short game is hampered by my lack of skill in judging distances.  

Just my $0.02