I'll have mine over easy -- the bi-polar U.S. Open

[Phil McDade]

I pointed this out on another thread, but thought it worthy of its own topic...

So far, through two rounds, the front nine at Olympic is playing far harder than the back nine. Eight of the nine hardest holes on the course are on the front nine, and four of them -- 1, 2, 5 and 6 -- are playing on average a full half-stroke over par. The front nine is playing more than three full strokes over par. The back nine, meanwhile -- although not easy by any means -- is playing less than a stroke-and-a-half over par.

http://www.usopen.com/en_US/scoring/stats/total.html

In short, the front nine is the slog, while the back nine is easier.

Those who know the course suggest this is one of Olympic's hallmark design elements -- a real tough beginnig.

My question: Does the design lend itself to a more compelling finish, should the championship remain closely contested? Does the difficiulty of the front nine -- and trying to survive it intact -- make it harder to make a move on the back nine? Will this be an Open settled on the front nine on Sunday?

Courses like Augusta National, to me, have proven to provide compelling golf because of the great ying-and-yang found there, particularly on the back nine. Olympic has one hard ying for nine holes, than an easier yang for the last nine. Is that a good thing?

So far, I like the challenge the course is providing to the players. But I'm not sure we've ever seen a more bi-polar US Open.

[David_Tepper]

Phil M. -

Remember, Arnold Palmer gave up a 7-shot lead on the back-9 on the last day of the 1966 US Open at Olympic. I don't think he would agree the back-9 there is easy.

DT 

[Kalen Braley]

I think the imbalance of the 9s in large part would be far more even if they kept the original par of the holes.

Specifically, play #1 as a short par 5, and #17 as a ball buster 4.

[Garland Bayley]

Let the birdies fly on the back nine today. Let's have some excitement in the finish.

[jeffwarne]

I think the imbalance of the 9s in large part would be far more even if they kept the original par of the holes.

Specifically, play #1 as a short par 5, and #17 as a ball buster 4.

+1