[Garland Bayley]

 
The stats you give would indicate that Medinah plays much easier under soft conditions. Although Medinah played much longer, 7 guys broke 284.

You need Congressional playing at least 7750 to equate the two distance wise given the equipment advances.

Garland:  your "analysis" discounts the 3X difference in players breaking 284 down to nothing, not to mention that it assumes equal difficulty around the green, equally difficult pin positions (I guarantee Medinah's were tougher) and focuses solely on length - something I'm certain you've said is basically irrelevant to top Tour players. My point is straightforward:  under comparable scoring conditions, Medinah was tougher to go low on than Congressional

I said what? I was the first to post on this thread the proposition that the USGA shortened the course to give people a chance to go in pursuit of Rory. I was the first to indicate that the shortening resulted in low scores. Until they move the tees forward for the weekend, there was not much problem of low scoring, other than by Rory.

If length doesn't matter, why do they keep lengthening US Open courses every year? Just grow the rough, dry it out and the scores will remain steady? I don't think so.

How many times have you played Congressional? Patrick told me to ask you that.

[Mark Johnson]

my biggest issue is the rough of lack thereof...   far too many greens were hit from the rough. 

With 3.5-4 inch US Open rough, Rory doesnt break 72 in his final round

[Eric_Terhorst]

Seriously, I can pick any regular PGA Tour stops and give you a list of great players who didn't make the cut, so what's the point? The numbers clearly show that this is probably the easiest US Open in modern era.

How many PGA Tour stops have these numbers for Top 50 2011 Money Leaders on the PGA Tour:

9/50 Under Par
14/50 Missed Cut
11/50 Did Not Qualify

5 of Top 10 -- Missed Cut
8 of Top 20 -- Missed Cut

Just a wild guess--it's hard to end up in the Top 10 PGA Tour Money Leaders if you miss a lot of cuts, isn't it?

Of the 25 of the 2011 Top 50 PGA Tour Money Leaders who played on the weekend at the 2011 US Open, the mean score relative to par was +1.12, Median +1

Of the 2011 Top 15 leaders in number of sub-par rounds on the PGA Tour, only 3 were under par for the US Open.

The suggestion that the 2011 US Open course was as "easy" as an average tour stop just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

[Richard Choi]

Eric, that is because on most regular PGA Tour stops, you don't have 10 of top 10 or 9 of top 10 players playing. You would be lucky to get 3 or 4. Which means if only 1 or 2 of those guys missed the cut, you would have an equivalent (For example, Wells Fargo had top 20 guys like Rory(!), Casey, Watney, Karlsson, and Dustin miss the cut line - out of 10 guys who played, ONLY 50% made the cut!!! - worse than US Open!!!).

If Congressional was playing as par 72, the score would be indistinguishable from most PGA Tour events. That pretty much survives any scrutiny, I am afraid.

Look, I have always argued that any local muni with sufficient length can host a successful Open if the greens were firm enough. Congressional greens were too soft for US Open. You can blame the weather if you wish, but I blame the people who prepared the course. The course was not suitable for a major as is.

[Garland Bayley]

...on this thread...

Precisely.  Where did I limit what I said to this thread? 

Go back to all the discussions of technology over the years.  I'll print this post out and eat it if you haven't said that distance isn't nearly the issue it is for Tour players that it is for the average player.  It's not my fault that no matter what anybody says, you say the opposite and can't remember what you said...   

Not sure how you could possibly get that interpretation from what I have always said. What I have always said is that the ball goes too far for the highly skilled player, and that they should put the spin back in the ball. I have often proposed a standardization of spin based on the slope of the line of spin rate off of the lofts from driver through wedge.

Would you like some salsa with that paper?

[Garland Bayley]

You still don't get it, Garland.  I think you're confused as to the difference between Tour players getting a bigger advantage from technology than the average player and Tour players not being affected by length as much as the average player.  Those are two different things.  More importantly, you have no idea what you always say (and neither does anybody else most of the time) because you'll take the other side of anything.  So you're always all over the place.  You may think you take consistent positions...but that's not how you operate.

I take no position on tour players not being affected by length as much as the average player, so I don't know why you bring it up. Your bringing it up is the confusing part. I do understand why you say I'll take the other side of anything, because I am almost always on the other side from you on most of the hair brained things you come up with. Except the cheater line. I doubt you will find me having ever taken a side on that one, because I am really not that interested in the issue. At most you might find me sending a barb or two your way with a smiley face for the fun of it. However, primarily it's one where I will let you have your fun without interfering.

With respect to the average player and his length, my stand is that he should not really concern himself that much with it. The average player competes on handicap. If he is short, his handicap will account for that and he will receive his adjustment for it. Of course the long ball is fun, so if the average player wants to try to hit it long (and probably somewhat crooked) then his handicap will reflect how well he does that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()