US Open vs Masters

[BHoover]

Yawn.

The Masters is a club invitational that has outgrown its britches. Set up a tournament so the chosen ones get anointed champion, add some feel good competitors, some flowers, and immaculate maintenance that can't be sustained, and you get a pageant that people salivate over. Only competition for such a pageant this year is the royal wedding.

The Open Championship is the truly interesting golf tournament.

I have to admit that, with your self-proclaimed expertise on shotmaking and putting, I’m surprised you would not think more of the Masters.

My commentary was on pageant and weak field, not course. Get it?

Your commentary referred to tournament setup. Get it?

[Cliff Hamm]

No one has yet addressed my initial question.  Has the US Open declined as far as image, prestige, status, prominence, stature, or whatever word satisfies your intellect, over the last 20 years?

It wasn’t really much good 20 or 30 years ago, was it?


Do kids dream about being Scott Simpson and winning the Monday playoff?

Maybe I am just older, but I think of Nicklaus, Trevino, Watson, Player,

[Garland Bayley]

Yawn.

The Masters is a club invitational that has outgrown its britches. Set up a tournament so the chosen ones get anointed champion, add some feel good competitors, some flowers, and immaculate maintenance that can't be sustained, and you get a pageant that people salivate over. Only competition for such a pageant this year is the royal wedding.

The Open Championship is the truly interesting golf tournament.

I have to admit that, with your self-proclaimed expertise on shotmaking and putting, I’m surprised you would not think more of the Masters.

My commentary was on pageant and weak field, not course. Get it?

Your commentary referred to tournament setup. Get it?

Either you don't understand the meaning of course setup, or you mistook my reference to setup to be something other than invitation list.

[Kalen Braley]

Way back in Post 1 and in the Title this is supposed to be about US Open Vs Masters...


Not all 4 majors...not that the other 2 aren't interesting.  As VK has said, i'm interested in Pros and Cons of one vs the other...


Seems the Masters is up at the moment....with an abysmal strength of field as its largest Con...

[Garland Bayley]

I'd rather watch golf at Erin Hills or Shinnecock over golf at ANGC. Even if they did bulldoze the esker at Erin Hills.

[BHoover]

Yawn.

The Masters is a club invitational that has outgrown its britches. Set up a tournament so the chosen ones get anointed champion, add some feel good competitors, some flowers, and immaculate maintenance that can't be sustained, and you get a pageant that people salivate over. Only competition for such a pageant this year is the royal wedding.

The Open Championship is the truly interesting golf tournament.

I have to admit that, with your self-proclaimed expertise on shotmaking and putting, I’m surprised you would not think more of the Masters.

My commentary was on pageant and weak field, not course. Get it?

Your commentary referred to tournament setup. Get it?

Either you don't understand the meaning of course setup, or you mistook my reference to setup to be something other than invitation list.

Sure, okay

[Edward Glidewell]

Way back in Post 1 and in the Title this is supposed to be about US Open Vs Masters...


Not all 4 majors...not that the other 2 aren't interesting.  As VK has said, i'm interested in Pros and Cons of one vs the other...


Seems the Masters is up at the moment....with an abysmal strength of field as its largest Con...

I've never really bought the strength of field argument against the Masters. The top 50 players in the world are invited, and it's a small field event. Does it really increase the strength of field if you invite the next 50? Do you really need more than the top 50 in the world (with a sprinkling of amateurs and other recent winners)? I don't think that would make it a better tournament, just like the PGA's claims of having the strongest field doesn't make it a better or more interesting major.


Anyways, I've always considered the Masters a more interesting/prestigious tournament than the US Open (and if I was a professional golfer the Masters is the major I'd want the most, with the Open Championship a close second), but I don't think the US Open has lost any prestige over the last 20 years. Although I actually somewhat enjoy the excessively penal nature of the US Open (just for variety's sake), the overall interest in any given year tends to depend on which course they are playing and what the USGA decides to do to it.

[Garland Bayley]

I've never really bought the strength of field argument against the Masters. ...

Yep, and it only takes two people to create the spectacle of a royal wedding.

[Edward Glidewell]

I've never really bought the strength of field argument against the Masters. ...

Yep, and it only takes two people to create the spectacle of a royal wedding.

I don't think the NCAA Tournament would be better if they expanded it to 128 teams.

[Jeff Schley]

I appreciate both tournaments and watch them without a doubt each year as much as I can.  I look forward to the Masters moreso because we have the same course each year and you can remember the shots played by all the players over the years.  Most people know the back 9 of ANGC so well because we have seen it so much and history has been played out over and over on these same holes.  We know the course so well, like a family member's birthday that comes around and you have a celebration for them that first full week in April.

The US Open obviously rotates courses, which causes us to learn the course that week and not repeated for another 10 or so years.  This is different from ANGC, which most golf fans know the course well.  I couldn't tell you the course of Erin Hills or Chambers Bay from memory which diminishes it against the Masters IMO.  However, I do enjoy the difficulty of the course setup, the use of spots for anyone with a 2.4 index or lower, always having Sunday be Father's Day is a huge plus for me and significant.

I personally rank this #2 behind the Masters with the Open and finally PGA.  I love Augusta National and it's uniqueness really can't be rivaled in my view.  I also love the US Open as it is put on by the organization that is for the public and the country's national open, which tries to utilize public courses (even some new courses) which I really love.  Of course having it on Father's Day means a lot to me as well.  You can love both your children so why can't you love both these tournaments.   

[Wayne_Kozun]

, which tries to utilize public courses (even some new courses) which I really love. 

I think the US Open has diminished somewhat in recent years and I think this is one of the reasons - the quality of courses has been diluted by going to places like Torrey Pines and Chambers Bay.  I would prefer to see more US Opens held at some of the more traditional courses more often, like Merion, Shinny, Winged Foot, Baltusrol, etc.  They are private but I don't think that should matter.

[Garland Bayley]

Winged Foot and Baltusrol can't hold a candle to Erin Hills and Chambers Bay.

[jeffwarne]

The market would indicate The Masters.......by a considerable margin.


Shinnecock is as iconic a venue as there is...in as wealthy a market as there is..down the road from the financial capital of the world.


and yet scalped tickets are 1/20th price of Masters tickets-and widely available

[Tim Leahy]

I flew accross the country to see a practice round at ANGC. I wouldnt drive an hour to see another Major. Every time you watch the Masrers it gets better because you know more about the course. You know what is coming and that makes it more exciting to watch. You know the breaks on the greens and where the hazards are. People love the Masters. They enjoy the other Majors. I wouldnt want the US Open to be played on the same course every year but I love that the Masters is.

[Garland Bayley]

Barack Obama would fly across an ocean to see the royal wedding, but he wouldn't drive an hour to witness Trump's 4th wedding.

[Jeff Evagues]

Yawn.

The Masters is a club invitational that has outgrown its britches. Set up a tournament so the chosen ones get anointed champion, add some feel good competitors, some flowers, and immaculate maintenance that can't be sustained, and you get a pageant that people salivate over. Only competition for such a pageant this year is the royal wedding.

The Open Championship is the truly interesting golf tournament.

I have to admit that, with your self-proclaimed expertise on shotmaking and putting, I’m surprised you would not think more of the Masters.

My commentary was on pageant and weak field, not course. Get it?

Since this site is about golf COURSES primarily there is no doubt ANGC is the best course money can buy. But I have never believed a limited field invitational should be considered a major championship.

[V. Kmetz]

Barack Obama would fly across an ocean to see the royal wedding, but he wouldn't drive an hour to witness Trump's 4th wedding.

Neither would Trump...he'd tweet "I do...BESTEST Wedding ever..." post a picture of someone else's wedding, then not sign the pre-nup on the line provided for David Dennison.  Then sue the invitees for not sending a gift.

[Peter Pallotta]

Like Edward, I've always thought the 'depth of field' critique overdone. (The world's best 50 golfers provide eachother plenty enough competition.) But I've also thought the talk of 'deeper fields than ever' overdone. Yes, a large group of very talented young golfers (including major winners) are out there today; but when TW can come back after his injury-lay off and immediately jump to near the top of the leader board time and time again, just maybe many in these 'deeper fields than ever' are simply not as great as they've been made out to be. Generational players are as rare now as they've always been.

[Eric LeFante]

No one has yet addressed my initial question.  Has the US Open declined as far as image, prestige, status, prominence, stature, or whatever word satisfies your intellect, over the last 20 years?

Over the last 20 years, the US Open had some negative events that hurt its reputation with players and fans:


- 1998 at Olympic with the back pin on 18: Payne Stewart watching his ball roll back towards him.
- 2004 at Shinnecock: The USGA lost control of the 7th green and the rest of the course. I believe Shinnecock lost several greens after the event.
- 2015 at Chambers Bay: The USGA telling the players the greens were fine when they weren't.
- 2016 at Oakmont: Rules issue with Dustin Johnson that took a lot away from the Championship.
- 2017 at Erin Hills: Not the USGA's fault that they got a lot of rain Tuesday and the wind didn't blow when it usually does, but now all the old timers are mad that the USGA has gone "soft" by widening fairways, cutting rough around the greens, etc. Right or wrong, it seems like the older timers believe today's players should be tortured at the US Open since they were when they played.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Like Edward, I've always thought the 'depth of field' critique overdone. (The world's best 50 golfers provide eachother plenty enough competition.) But I've also thought the talk of 'deeper fields than ever' overdone. Yes, a large group of very talented young golfers (including major winners) are out there today; but when TW can come back after his injury-lay off and immediately jump to near the top of the leader board time and time again, just maybe many in these 'deeper fields than ever' are simply not as great as they've been made out to be. Generational players are as rare now as they've always been.

I think that Tiger being able to ascend again as quickly as he has - now that he's actually pain free for the most part - is simply a testament to how great he was/is. I think the fields are significantly deeper (and why I think 14 > 18, given that context). I think the shallow field in the Masters still makes it easier to win - 100+ players can win a PGA Tour event any given week, and this week about 40 of those types of guys aren't even given the chance.

I don't particularly have a favorite among the majors. They're all different. I like them for their differences.

[Tim Martin]

Eric-Although I am not a fan of seeing super high scores at the U.S. Open some of the most compelling viewing for spectators has come as a result of scores around or over par. I think Hogan in 1951, Venturi in 1964 and Nicklaus in 1972 are all pretty good examples. Ray Floyd in 1986 and Pavin in 1995 both at Shinnecock are more contemporary examples but no no less exhilarating.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Jack Nicklaus just said on Live from the Masters that the Masters was the easiest major to win largely because of the shallower field, the decreased number of players in it.

He added the caveat that you had to hit the ball high, and credited Gary with winning the equivalent of six Masters given his ball flight and distance, but again said that if you're a high ball hitter who has at least average distance, it's the easiest to win. (The Gary Player angle was used to illustrate how a shallow field is made even shallower by ruling out low ball hitters and often short hitters.)

[John Kavanaugh]

Rarely does a day go by where I don't think of Andy North.

[Robert Kimball]

No one has yet addressed my initial question.  Has the US Open declined as far as image, prestige, status, prominence, stature, or whatever word satisfies your intellect, over the last 20 years?

Cliff -- for me, the USGA's switch to FOX is a big turn off. I know that might seem superficial, but that's just the way it is for me. I have some bias as well as I am not happy with the steps the USGA are taking to lessen my enjoyment of the game (long putters). The FOX video-game-like presentation doesn't help me either.


That said, I believe the US Open is still awesome and it's a major that carries much prestige and prominence. But, course set up, combined with some (perhaps) suspect venues, have left it lacking in recent years. This is no reflection against Brooks Keopka, he simply played and overpowered what was in front of him.


I could go on and on about the wonder and beauty of The Masters, but it would be repetitive of all the other posts. Also, having been lucky enough to have gone many years (even back when practice-round tickets could be bought at the gate), the place holds special prominence in my life.


I am not sure what the customer experience is at the other majors, but at Augusta it is supreme. Best possible experience for the patrons combined with the beautiful surroundings is amazing.  One year I spotted Byron Nelson just standing by himself by the pro shop and approached him. He was very gracious and told me, among other things, that this was the one place he can go and feel at home. That was pretty cool, I have to admit.


I believe the majors are listed currently in the order in which they are viewed by Americans. 1, Augusta, 2, US Open, 3, Open, 4, PGA.


Finally, how happy would we all be if the USGA announced they were moving to a rotation of: Pebble, Oakmont, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, Pebble, Pebble, Pebble and then Oakmont!

[Joe Schackman]

I read The Secret of Golf about Tom Watson and Jack Nicklaus. In that book they talk about how Tom's father LOVED the US Open and would constantly quiz Tom on US Open winners and venues. I got the impression, not being in that age group, that Watson, like most of his generation, grew up revering the US Open.

I think that has shifted among the players. If you ask younger players which they would want to win, Masters or US Open I think the predominant answer is Masters.

The Why is somewhat of a chicken or the egg question. Did players preference shift because fans obsess over the Masters now? Or did fans start obsessing over the Masters because players now covet the Green Jacket the most?

I personally think it is the latter because winning the Masters gets you access to an exclusive club. You get the jacket/membership. You are invited back every year. You go to the Champions Dinner. You get into the Champions Locker Room. These are wealthy individuals and almost no door in the world is shut to them 51 weeks a year. But if you don't have Green Jacket you can't attend that dinner. They are still human so that matters.