Poulter's Instagram and Pic of Chambers Bay Green

[Bill Seitz]

You do not want the adverse condition of the playing field determining the champion. That should be skill.

Yeah, it's pretty clear the guy who has started off the season winning the first two majors was just lucky. 

[Howard Riefs]

Most people that call people like Poulter whiners have never played any sport at a high level. You do not want the adverse condition of the playing field determining the champion. That should be skill. if the greens were decent Dustin wins by 4.

It is not ok to be psychotic
These guys have so much time on their hands doing nothing
Pampered brats when they should be thanking everyone for the thousands of volunteer hours put in so they could "compete"
Bad role models for future generations of competitors

Why are the volunteers still volunteers at these events?


The US Open has prize money of $10 million.  Couldn't the multimillionaire competitors make do with, say, $9 million, leaving plenty to pay to the volunteers so they're not giving up a week of their time for nothing.

Doesn't seem to be an issue in attracting people to give up a week. There's already a waiting list to be a volunteer at the 2016 US Open.
https://2016volunteers.usga.org/2016vols/

[Carson Pilcher]

Poulter may be whining, but did anyone see how Snedeker's putt hopped up in the air on #14 or #15 yesterday?  It was like it hit a...well... a head of broccoli.  It jumped straight up into the air and killed all of it's speed.  I saw other putts "wobbling" as they rolled.  I am also not sure (due to the shadow) that Dustin Johnson's ball did not hit something and kick left on #18.


All in all, no one likes a whiner, and they all have to play the same course.  However, you guys have to admit the putting surfaces were not ideal for a major championship. 

[John Connolly]

Bring back skinny fairways, tall rough, and emerald green? Yawn. I don't need an Augusta Open. Give me a colosseum with gladiators, lions and blood. I want entertainment from the US Open, not a book reading. My heart rate has yet to normalize.

[Mark Buzminski]

Bring back skinny fairways, tall rough, and emerald green? Yawn. I don't need an Augusta Open. Give me a colosseum with gladiators, lions and blood. I want entertainment from the US Open, not a book reading. My heart rate has yet to normalize.

Agreed.   I like watching anything that takes these players out of their comfort zone.   Many of them could not cope and were done before they hit their first shot. 

[Brent Hutto]

Most people that call people like Poulter whiners have never played any sport at a high level. You do not want the adverse condition of the playing field determining the champion. That should be skill. if the greens were decent Dustin wins by 4.

The greens did not cost Dustin Johnson the tournament.   His putting stroke evaporated on the back nine.

I'm not saying this is what happened to Dustin (who after all would probably win three majors a year if he putted as well as Jordan Spieth) but we've all experienced playing for a couple days in a row in heavy winds. At some point playing the wind just destroys your swing and your timing and it can take weeks to get back on track.


Isn't it possible that four days in a row of putting on crap greens had rendered Dustin's always dodgy putting stroke disfunctional?


I remember being at at golf clinic one time years ago when the instructor was talking about the guys with "loopy" putting strokes like Billy Mayfair (a well-known Tour player at the time). He said on super-fast, ultra-smooth greens you can make almost any kind of quirky putting fundamentals work with good enough nerves and with sufficient practice. But on slow, bumpy greens the guys with the most fundamentally sound strokes who putt a great roll on the ball have an advantage.


To me Dustin's stroke always looks a little wipe-y or something but normally he repeats it well enough to get by given his prodigious tee to green game. Surely his nerves can only take so many veering, bouncing short putts at Chambers Bay before the "little wipe-y or something" gets totally out of whack.

[George Pazin]

The point is simple: major championships should be played on courses that are fairly designed and in top condition, to ensure that the winner is determined by skill and mental endurance while, to the greatest extent possible, eliminating luck as a determining factor.

You can't eliminate luck in any sport, and to try to do so is a fool's errand.

[Tom Kelly]

Is it just me or does that picture look like a tee with the pots in the background rather than a green?! They look far too big in relation to the grass to be balls.

[George Pazin]

Here's what I don't understand about the criticism and the critics: the results do not comport with what they say. And I think that's pretty clear.

You have a guy who won the first major, and is clearly a rising megastar, win with a score under par.

You have his biggest challengers being one of the top golfers in the world (DJ) and a top talent who already has won a major and finished 2nd in a playoff in another (Louie). The leaderboard is literally lined with big names.

Anyone who tells you this Open was the result of lucky, fluky play clearly has ZERO understanding of both the game and statistics.

Were conditions perfect? No. Do I want to see them perfect? Hell no. Not because there is something wrong with perfect conditions, but because the pursuit of perfection usually results in soft, boring, drop and stop golf.

You can have Hazeltine, Valhalla and Atlanta whatever, I'll take Sandwich, Shinney and Chambers...

[Jim Nugent]

Amen, George.  We saw birdies galore, and even nearly two score eagles.  This was the opposite of the frequent US Open par/bogey slog. 

And the Amateur at Chambers produced similar stellar results. 

I again wonder, what would have changed if the greens had been in perfect shape? 

[George Pazin]

Amen, George.  We saw birdies galore, and even nearly two score eagles.  This was the opposite of the frequent US Open par/bogey slog. 

And the Amateur at Chambers produced similar stellar results. 

I again wonder, what would have changed if the greens had been in perfect shape?

The losers wouldn't have excuses.

[Martin Lehmann]

Putting taste, personal preferences and other subjective aspects aside, there is only one relevant question: did the course prove to be a 'true test of golf', giving the best player the opportunity to lift the trophy? If you take a look at the final leaderboard, the answer is a loud and clear 'Yes!' 

[Brent Hutto]

I'll say for my part if every green were more or less like the all-Fescue (or nearly so) redone ones my estimation of course would be far more favorable. Not saying "perfect greens" are the standard but the worst greens were unacceptably bad for this level of tournament.


There would still be the head-scratching elements of a walking-only course laid out like the worst form of cart-ball routing and a US Open course on which spectators were missing from half the holes. But those are quibbles. The thing about the greens was the big deal.


And as I've said before, the luck of the draw in terms of players playing well or not has much more to do with the outcome than does the design of the course or Mike Davis's shenanigans.

[Mike Hendren]

Disappointed for Dustin but I told my wife Saturday, when asked if he'll win that I doubted it - sooner or later he'd do something stupid.  I don't know what else to call 3-putting from 12 feet.  Yet some insist that the conditions of the greens somehow cost him the tournament. 
 
Seems like someone once said you drive for show and putt for dough.  There remain fundamental truths about the game. 
 
When's the last time someone came home in 29 strokes in the U. S. Open?  Surely it couldn't happen on the worst greens in the history of professional golf, could it?
 
 

[Brent Hutto]

When's the last time someone came home in 29 strokes in the U. S. Open?  Surely it couldn't happen on the worst greens in the history of professional golf, could it?

Greg Norman commented during one of the earlier rounds about how well Spieth catches his putts "high on the face" of the putter and therefore rolls the ball extremely solidly putt after putt. I think Norman was correct and I think it definitely made the inconsistent (being generous) greens conditions work in Spieth's favor relative to the other top contenders over the weekend.


I said in another thread that Dustin would have had a fighting chance to putt good-enough if the greens were smooth. Lord knows from tee to green Dustin outplayed Jordan by, what, a good four or five strokes on Sunday? I'd think a short (ish) hitting great putter who didn't seem to be at his most accurate full-swing-wise would absolutely want to see some extra adversity built into the putting part of the game.


That putt Jordan make on the 16th yesterday, he practically had his back turned by the time it finally dropped. He knew when it was still 15 feet from the hole that he'd made it. Even on crap greens. To me that was far more impressive than someone doing an early walk and fist pump after hitting a 20-footer on Sunday at Augusta!

[noonan]

It's ironic how a group here that spends an incredible about of time arguing about the relative merits of the most minute elements of golf course design quickly latches hold of the "they were all playing the same course/greens!" argument when a brown USGA course is at stake.  Another stupid argument repeated often on this site over the last few days is "these guys make a lot of money so they have no right to complain," as if the USGA is doing these players some sort of favor by holding the event (Hint: the USGA is a very profitable enterprise).  The propaganda machine has been hard at work on your minds!


The point is simple: major championships should be played on courses that are fairly designed and in top condition, to ensure that the winner is determined by skill and mental endurance while, to the greatest extent possible, eliminating luck as a determining factor.  Poor green conditions and a silly course setup with wild caroms everywhere seem inconsistent with this goal to many of the game's most decorated professionals, and I agree.  Spieth is an incredible young man and golfer, and had a well-earned victory.


As I said yesterday before the start of the round, of course it was an exciting finish - what made it exciting is that the course was so absurd that anything could happen to any player at any time.  While the USGA is a business and the ratings were surely strong, making Fox happy, this setup was a major departure from historical standards.

100% spot on!

[Jason Thurman]

I keep reading posts decrying the greens by pointing out that the guy with the best stroke handled them well, while the guys with garbage strokes had their mechanics implode over the course of four rounds. Remind me again how that's a bad thing.

[Howard Riefs]

I said in another thread that Dustin would have had a fighting chance to putt good-enough if the greens were smooth. Lord knows from tee to green Dustin outplayed Jordan by, what, a good four or five strokes on Sunday? I'd think a short (ish) hitting great putter who didn't seem to be at his most accurate full-swing-wise would absolutely want to see some extra adversity built into the putting part of the game.

"Short" or "shortish"? Facts say it's more accurate to use "average" or "above average"?


The Tour's driving distance average is 287 yards. Jordan is ranked 71st with an average of 291 yards.
http://www.pgatour.com/stats/stat.101.html


Hardly Dustin. But hardly shortish based on facts.

[Garland Bayley]

Most people that call people like Poulter whiners have never played any sport at a high level. You do not want the adverse condition of the playing field determining the champion. That should be skill. if the greens were decent Dustin wins by 4.

Are you sure you watched the same tournament we did? Dustin couldn't even find the center of his putter face in pressure packed putts the last round.


Furthermore, with your statement above, you sure throw out the theory that the best putters (Jordan) suffer the most with bad greens.

[Jeff Fortson]

There was a 64 and a 29 on the back shot on Sunday. Numerous players finished under par. I've never played in a US Open but I have played in 4 USGA championships and if I've learned one thing from those experiences, they do a great job of identifying the player/s playing the best.

I have little respect for players gifted and blessed enough to play for a $10million purse publicly complaining about the condition of the course without giving the USGA (esp Mike Davis) the professional courtesy of sharing their opinion privately. These players complaining come off as though they think the golf world revolves around their expectations and needs. They are not bigger than the game.

Gil Hanse nailed the issue live on the telecast. Should CB exist to have only hosted this event this week?  The course is open to the public and the sustainability of the greens and course are priority and Gil's assessment of the situation was spot on.

[Garland Bayley]

...
If something went awry, then why not face it honestly?   I think that is part of what Poulter was saying.

Perhaps there was nothing to face. Perhaps Poulter is  not honest. Perhaps claiming that half a PGA tour field would withdraw if the greens presented such an issue sheds some light on his honesty.


I have played the course five times and I have no issue with the greens. Perhaps Ian should become more accustomed to how the other half lives.

Garland,
I truly mean this respectfully.  When you played there, were the greens, in your opinion, the same quality of roll as what Chambers appeared to be?  I am certainly not a fan of Poulter by any stretch, but from a distance, it appears that the USGA really screwed the conditions up.  From what I've heard, the greens were slow but rolled pretty decently a month ago.

I have never seen the greens at Chambers to be a problem when I played there. I cannot relate my experience to what we saw on TV, because I did not replay my putts magnified, and in slow motion to see every wiggle. Are you sure that Fox was not just exploiting a controversy to gain further exposure by doing their most to accentuate the complaints.


The recording of the "perfect" putt that detoured around the hole at the last moment is nothing new. I have seen that on greens that as far as I was concerned were fine. The perfect putt would have had enough momentum to carry into the hole instead sliding around it. It seems to me sensationalism is at play here and too many are buying into it.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

When the USGA decided to host this tournament at CB, is this what they envisioned for the greens?  Or did something go awry along the way?

Objection your honor. Requires speculation on the part of the witness.

[Garland Bayley]

Oh come on, Ian. That's clearly the Lo-Fi filter exaggerating things


All I know is, I haven't been that glued to the end of a major in a very long time. As was pointed out earlier, perhaps those crying loudest should look inward instead of blaming greens - which the entire field putted - for the reason why they still don't have a major.

Exactly my sentiments. People have no idea what was done to get that picture, so how can they take it for credible evidence of the situation.


If I took a close up of your anus and said it looked like you, would you be pleased?

[Russ Arbuthnot]

Most people that call people like Poulter whiners have never played any sport at a high level. You do not want the adverse condition of the playing field determining the champion. That should be skill. if the greens were decent Dustin wins by 4.

http://golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/joshua-crane-part-i/

[Garland Bayley]

It's ironic how a group here that spends an incredible about of time arguing about the relative merits of the most minute elements of golf course design quickly latches hold of the "they were all playing the same course/greens!" argument when a brown USGA course is at stake.  Another stupid argument repeated often on this site over the last few days is "these guys make a lot of money so they have no right to complain," as if the USGA is doing these players some sort of favor by holding the event (Hint: the USGA is a very profitable enterprise).  The propaganda machine has been hard at work on your minds!


The point is simple: major championships should be played on courses that are fairly designed and in top condition, to ensure that the winner is determined by skill and mental endurance while, to the greatest extent possible, eliminating luck as a determining factor.  Poor green conditions and a silly course setup with wild caroms everywhere seem inconsistent with this goal to many of the game's most decorated professionals, and I agree.  Spieth is an incredible young man and golfer, and had a well-earned victory.


As I said yesterday before the start of the round, of course it was an exciting finish - what made it exciting is that the course was so absurd that anything could happen to any player at any time.  While the USGA is a business and the ratings were surely strong, making Fox happy, this setup was a major departure from historical standards.

I find it incredulous that you seem to believe the BS you continually post on this website.