When I was a kid, I liked the US Open much better simply because more of it was covered on TV, and covered better. Plus, I liked the experience of watching the otherwise hyper-competent tour pros really sweat and struggle.
But as an older man now and knowing a little bit more about golf architecture, I can see the US Open has become more of a contrived situation than it used to be. Or maybe to be more accurate, the USGA has recently had a harder time "contriving well".
In fairness we have to admit that all professional golf tournaments are taking place on contrived grounds. And as such, Augusta does a better job of contriving than anyone else out there -- with the considerable advantages of using the same venue every year, having absolute control over said venue, and probably an inexhaustible reservoir of funds to enact said control. In terms of providing the greatest "contrived" golfing ground in the world, ANGC will whip the USGA every time.
And nowadays, which tournament can I see better from my couch? It's not the US Open anymore. It's the Masters, hands down. Somebody up there said the Masters app is the greatest one out there, and I agree. Also, once the Masters got over the mystery angle years ago and started showing the front nine action to everybody, the US Open could no longer visually compete.
From a raw GCA standpoint, you've got to admit that ANGC, its basic design, and the land it is set on makes for better architecture than all but a rare few American golf courses -- even with the institution of the second cut. Pine Valley and CPC could easily compete with Augusta -- but they can't physically host majors. A wonderful course like Merion could compete, but is kind of compromised by the USGA setup and the problems of modern equipment. Shinnecock this year could be very good.
Meanwhile, the ever more detailed Masters coverage lets us see even more closely how short(er) grass and ground contours used intelligently are REALLY what makes the game a challenge for the pros. This is not what I thought as a kid, when it seemed five-inch rough was the best likely solution to create a test.
If ANGC would just get rid of that long(ish) grass, they'd have a hammerlock advantage on the US Open going forward. The USGA knows it too -- look at how they introduce a course like Erin Hills with its short grass and width into a championship rota known for anything but that.
I think the USGA could make their Open better and keep it a distinctive brand by just making Oakmont its permanent site. That place is great golf architecture too, and very much in tune with the historical ethos of the US Open. I don't suppose the Oakmont membership would want to put up with that, though.
I think I understand the crowd that believes The Open Championship still is the reigning king of the game. For all my blather about golfing contrivance, it makes sense that the world's best major needs to be one decided on a real links situated in the homeland of golf. I don't have a good argument against that, so it's probably the truth.