[Sean_A]

Is there a true championship course on the planet which looks as easy as Pinehurst, but plays as difficult?

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

The winner of an event normally reckons the course played great while all the others are usually looking for an excuse why they didn't win and the course is an easy target for the latter.
atb

[Tom_Doak]

You may be well be right that there's an element in golf admin. who cares about the issue at focus here... but they are nearly moot and ineffectual, no one is held accountable, and actually TD, I'm hard pressed to think of the US Open since 04 (and the Bethpage/Mike Davis cognizance) that went consecutive years without a controversy about the course, how its presented, what was done to make it presentable... sadly, even though the reboot 86 and 95 Open register with us folk as tournaments about the competition and how it went, the first question any Open will get at Shinnecock for the modern generation, is have they gone too far...

Another part is that while TV is not going to blast their purchased products, TV doesn't fear their sports as much as earns concessions from them... can you honestly say that the move to a sudden death style for all the majors isn't a direct concession to TV to give them (and us, the public supposedly hungering for it) a Sunday dinner hour winner? ... that two tees more ensures that the 4 rd schedule will be followed despite weather? and with that relationship in locked effect, I say those voices are much louder more meaningful than the faction that is embarrassed that a course gets away....albeit in the extremities of CoVid and a rescheduled golf slate, look how quickly and without muss NBC took back the USGA properties from Fox last year... if the money is worked out to all parties satisfactions....In effect, I'm saying that the USGA has given over its treasure for treasury...like all sports it really doesn't matter what happens or how it happens, just that the games go on and they generate viewership.


In another thread (future venues?) you voiced support for a return to Chambers Bay...why?  That course was a contrast nightmare for TV viewing, with (I'm to understand) sections of the course choked off for onsite spectators, that was a golfing version of a Plinko board...

VK:


I'm not a big fan of Chambers Bay, so I don't know what thread you are talking about there.  I think you have me confused with someone else.


I agree with your second paragraph that TV calls the shots on a lot of things these days.  You take their money, you do what they want. But I don't think that TV has insisted on hard setups . . . as you correctly point out, the USGA has been doing that since 1974 [my first U.S. Open].


But I think you overstate how often things "get away from them".  They are trying to set it up very hard, as Robert says.  Just like that can always be portrayed as "the best player won", it can also always be portrayed as "controversial" just by asking some of the losers.  Most players are conditioned to the weekly PGA TOUR setup and they just don't understand why setting the course up to make them look silly is somehow considered to produce a better champion.  So, it's a combination of sour grapes and a TV industry which wants to sell controversy and drama.


But I do think 2004 was in the class of 1974, and most other U.S. Opens were not as far over the top as those.

[Jim Sherma]

I must admit that I liked Chambers Bay as a tv venue. The course asked for certain shots to access certain pins by having the ball move along the ground, not dissimilar to Augusta. Obviously the surface of the greens (now addressed evidently) and gallery access issues might make it a less than desirable venue in other ways. From a tv viewers standpoint I would be happy to see another major played there.

[Jeff_Brauer]

VK,


A US Open without controversy? The horrors.  It goes back as far as 1970 and Hazeltine, maybe further but that was before I started watching golf.  Every golfer gets asked about his feelings about the course. Most spout cliches, but a few give reporters guarded critiques, and fewer still are outright hostile.


And, I doubt the current social media shock news environment isn't the biggest driver.  News outlets like controversy.  Maybe even the USGA, I don't know (but probably not as much)  I should go back and watch the ratings for the US Open at Shinney when the 7th green wouldn't hold.  I wonder if they are higher because of the controversy than the open before and after.

[Phil Burr]

Perhaps the grand-daddy of the USGA's overly zealous defense of par was the 1951 event at Oakland Hills.  Ben Hogan won at +7 (sane winning score as Irwin at the infamous Winged Foot event of '74) and had one of only two sub-par rounds in the entire event.  RTJ had done a major overhaul of the original Ross design prior to the Open, and Hogan commented during the awards ceremony "I am glad I brought this course - this monster - to its knees".


Looking forward to the unveiling of the restoration of the course by Gil Hanse.  RTJ's design in unquestionably difficult, but it always looked on TV like it wouldn't be particularly enjoyable to play as a member.

[Jeff Schley]

Controversy.. ?  When?

[Kevin_Reilly]

That was just a bad hole location on a single hole.

[Jeff Schley]

That was just a bad hole location on a single hole.

Others.
https://www.golfmonthly.com/us-open/us-open-blog/8-us-open-controversies-72674

[Pat Burke]

I’m mixed on all of this.
1) I usually have little problem with that attitude of play what is there
But
2) when I played Pebble in 1992 they basically killed the greens. They were painting them and there was still just enough “growth” to make them silly bumpy for the speeds. 
The rough was brutal and the course was very difficult but they pushed the greens so far it seemed absurd. The tee to green was just a hard challenge imo
3) pushing the boundaries can get you paste the edge. Hole locations need to be a few inches safer when it’s on edge IMO
But (again)
Gotta play where they’re playing

[Terry Lavin]

The 2003 Open at Olympia Fields was a textbook example of setup schizophrenia. In 2002 at Bethpage, the hacking out of ankle high rough was viewed harshly.


So at Olympia, they cut the rough even though the course was soft and the prevailing winds were absent. They compensated with triple cut greens and maniacal hole locations on the final two days which brought the field back above par, but the media beat us up like we made the course too easy. 


Then the rebound at Shinnecock in 2004. Whipsaw setup philosophy gone amok, IMHO.

[Sean_A]

I must admit that I liked Chambers Bay as a tv venue. The course asked for certain shots to access certain pins by having the ball move along the ground, not dissimilar to Augusta. Obviously the surface of the greens (now addressed evidently) and gallery access issues might make it a less than desirable venue in other ways. From a tv viewers standpoint I would be happy to see another major played there.

+1 Highly entertaining Open. But, unless you knew the course or had 3D TV, the movement was crazy to watch.

Ciao

[V. Kmetz]

VK:

I'm not a big fan of Chambers Bay, so I don't know what thread you are talking about there.  I think you have me confused with someone else.
I did, my bad.
I agree with your second paragraph that TV calls the shots on a lot of things these days.  You take their money, you do what they want. But I don't think that TV has insisted on hard setups . . . as you correctly point out, the USGA has been doing that since 1974 [my first U.S. Open].
I don't think TV insists on hard set ups; I'm just saying there's no governance, no real airing, discussion or debate. No one is made to answer WHY altering a course par, graduated WF rough, Olympic pins, Shinnecock speed at wind, Oakmont's greens IDENTIFY a worthy champion. In the absence of common sense in the room... well, yeah...I guess I AM looking to Zinger and Brad Faxon to wig out on these guys....somebody, anybody. They have made a big deal of their curation and branding of these courses...they pump/permit the narrative of these courses as " a brutal test," and the WF logo is probably approaching Apple's in ubiquity. Everything's subordinate to the dollar and what I'm saying is this doesn't matter to anybody there, no matter their momentary embarrassments.
But I think you overstate how often things "get away from them".  They are trying to set it up very hard, as Robert says.  Just like that can always be portrayed as "the best player won", it can also always be portrayed as "controversial" just by asking some of the losers.  Most players are conditioned to the weekly PGA TOUR setup and they just don't understand why setting the course up to make them look silly is somehow considered to produce a better champion.  So, it's a combination of sour grapes and a TV industry which wants to sell controversy and drama.
Well, if I am overstating it, its because I feel an abundance of being cheated as an interested spectator ANY time the governing body's decisions/field set up substantially change the competition... it's a bait and switch to me...gotcha.  But now I don't care nearly as much, (that's what I'm overstating - my care) and the train-wreck or the tension over DJs ruling on the 5th green, or the pin position at Olympic, or the non-OB lost balls at WF's rough in September are all just a DVR  FF>> button beyond.

But I do think 2004 was in the class of 1974, and most other U.S. Opens were not as far over the top as those.

[jeffwarne]

I should go back and watch the ratings for the US Open at Shinney when the 7th green wouldn't hold.  I wonder if they are higher because of the controversy than the open before and after.

The course was only a problem on Sunday.(nad the weather accurately predicted)
The rest of the week was calm, with fog and far less dry conditions.
So it would be hard to see how word would travel quickly enough in a pre twitter age for(more than usual) viewers to tune in to the carnage once word slipped out via the internet,TV etc/.

[Jeff_Brauer]

VK:

I'm not a big fan of Chambers Bay, so I don't know what thread you are talking about there.  I think you have me confused with someone else.
I did, my bad.
I agree with your second paragraph that TV calls the shots on a lot of things these days.  You take their money, you do what they want. But I don't think that TV has insisted on hard setups . . . as you correctly point out, the USGA has been doing that since 1974 [my first U.S. Open].
I don't think TV insists on hard set ups; I'm just saying there's no governance, no real airing, discussion or debate. No one is made to answer WHY altering a course par, graduated WF rough, Olympic pins, Shinnecock speed at wind, Oakmont's greens IDENTIFY a worthy champion. In the absence of common sense in the room... well, yeah...I guess I AM looking to Zinger and Brad Faxon to wig out on these guys....somebody, anybody. They have made a big deal of their curation and branding of these courses...they pump/permit the narrative of these courses as " a brutal test," and the WF logo is probably approaching Apple's in ubiquity. Everything's subordinate to the dollar and what I'm saying is this doesn't matter to anybody there, no matter their momentary embarrassments.
But I think you overstate how often things "get away from them".  They are trying to set it up very hard, as Robert says.  Just like that can always be portrayed as "the best player won", it can also always be portrayed as "controversial" just by asking some of the losers.  Most players are conditioned to the weekly PGA TOUR setup and they just don't understand why setting the course up to make them look silly is somehow considered to produce a better champion.  So, it's a combination of sour grapes and a TV industry which wants to sell controversy and drama.
Well, if I am overstating it, its because I feel an abundance of being cheated as an interested spectator ANY time the governing body's decisions/field set up substantially change the competition... it's a bait and switch to me...gotcha.  But now I don't care nearly as much, (that's what I'm overstating - my care) and the train-wreck or the tension over DJs ruling on the 5th green, or the pin position at Olympic, or the non-OB lost balls at WF's rough in September are all just a DVR  FF>> button beyond.

But I do think 2004 was in the class of 1974, and most other U.S. Opens were not as far over the top as those.

No governance?  Should there be some govt department to oversee how the US Open course is set up?  Even some gca centric watchdog group?  IMHO, it's the USGA's party and they can make participants cry if they want to.

[V. Kmetz]

No governance?  Should there be some govt department to oversee how the US Open course is set up?  Even some gca centric watchdog group?  IMHO, it's the USGA's party and they can make participants cry if they want to.

No I didn't mean that, and if governance is a poor choice... I meant something more in the accountability area... if YHO is correct (and I'm ok with that)..it just re-affirms that they have lost the forest for the trees ... having the competition subordinate to the set up, having the impact of these "proprietary" (is that better than governing) conditions mean more than the graces of the course and the competitors tackle with it... is phony bunk.  As I've re-stated...I'm fine with it, but if their pants come down over and over...they're flashers and I'm saying so.

[Kalen Braley]

Vk,

As one who works in an industry with both an Internal and External governance component, I certainly understood the intent.

Given the latter will certainly never occur, the only type of the former I can think of is for top players to start saying no and skipping the event as its not mandatory to my knowledge, but fat chance of that happening.

In the absence of actual accountability, I'm guessing it will continue on with various types of moaning, pissing, complaining from players or the media.  And certainly don't expect the fans to vote with their wallets either, most are secretly enjoying watching the pros struggle as they do every time they step out for a Saturday round on their DS2 muni.

[V. Kmetz]

Vk,

As one who works in an industry with both an Internal and External governance component, I certainly understood the intent.

Given the latter will certainly never occur, the only type of the former I can think of is for top players to start saying no and skipping the event as its not mandatory to my knowledge, but fat chance of that happening.

In the absence of actual accountability, I'm guessing it will continue on with various types of moaning, pissing, complaining from players or the media.  And certainly don't expect the fans to vote with their wallets either, most are secretly enjoying watching the pros struggle as they do every time they step out for a Saturday round on their DS2 muni.

Totally agree, and I'm not defecting or not watching...it's just another layer of B.S. I have to cast aside and another reminder that their concept of the rigor of this event has gotten off the rails more times than anybody here seems to admit...  I played WF the day after September's USO; its; lovely that DeChambeau did what he did...(someone always wins, no)...fricking joke...rough so deep that a thinner roster of spotters can't find it for a competitor 20 yards off line? That is the f'n tail wagging the dog.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Most of us are on the same page, it appears.  I do believe public opinion (like this thread) and players' input do serve as a sort of governance.  I believe the USGA has given this more thought over the decades than any of us do before firing up the keyboard on golf club atlas.  And, I think they take their own experience, good and bad into account.


I think they have always been concerned with differentiating themselves and their national championship from the PGA Tour.  If the winner shoots 20 under, like they used to do in AZ or Palm Springs, does that tournament really have a unique position?  So, yeah, their "brand" is the toughest to win tournament in the world.  I think they have backed away from 6" deep rough for the most part, but I wasn't at WF so I cannot comment.  And, it may vary by course, a la, playing a short Merion might lead them to deeper rough to compensate.



But, as mentioned, it's tough to perfectly predict Mother Nature when trying to set up on the edge.  Of all the things (or the supposed dummies who control those things) I could go on the internet and complain about, US Open course setup isn't that high on my list.

[V. Kmetz]

I believe the USGA has given this more thought over the decades than any of us do before firing up the keyboard on golf club atlas. 

That's the only thing I'm no longer buying JB... that "deferential conceit" that they know best. I'll buy that they have people who know how to market, stage the circus, make the deals, partner with the people, get the most money and liaison with the clubs that host...but as to producing conditions that show off and posit the course as a honest measure of who the best player is that week... they've lost that regard, that deference, from this quarter.  It's deeper than course set up, but when this controversy repeats, it's a bunch of malarkey.


Like many here, I've played and/or worked and /or visited 9 of the last 20 open sites, two of them in excess of 100 "visits", some are now repeaters. I've no official title but a vast "street education"  with the science of agronomy and spent 40 years close to this particular aspect of the game, how a course plays, what it is, what the best in the world look like on them.  I'm valid to give input and my input is that "it is better to have 270, than players unable to play and the competition diminished by the chase of 280-288."  They don't get that and it seems they never will.

[Kalen Braley]

VK,

I'm inclined to think its along the lines you're headed.  I suspect the US Open setup has become institutionalized which it may have been you or someone else pointed out after the latest fiasco at Shinnecock.

An entire team devoted to just doing US Open setups that's become this massive organism that must continually invent work and workload to justify keeping their job year over year.  And the story can't just be "Yea the guys at Shinnecock know what their doing with decades of hands on experience in the aggregate". So they fiddle and tweak and second guess and come up with a "new" game plan over several years of on-site visits, and then of course come Open week the inevitable "Ahh shit" happens.

In the post-mortem they can't just say we blew it, instead its back to the USGA Approval committee to ask for even more resources/personnel to make sure their bases are covered the next time, so the organism grows again....and on and on it goes.

[V. Kmetz]

VK,

I'm inclined to think its along the lines you're headed.  I suspect the US Open setup has become institutionalized which it may have been you or someone else pointed out after the latest fiasco at Shinnecock.

An entire team devoted to just doing US Open setups that's become this massive organism that must continually invent work and workload to justify keeping their job year over year.  And the story can't just be "Yea the guys at Shinnecock know what their doing with decades of hands on experience in the aggregate". So they fiddle and tweak and second guess and come up with a "new" game plan over several years of on-site visits, and then of course come Open week the inevitable "Ahh shit" happens.

In the post-mortem they can't just say we blew it, instead its back to the USGA Approval committee to ask for even more resources/personnel to make sure their bases are covered the next time, so the organism grows again....and on and on it goes.

You're representing my position well...


That the USGA, specifically, has institutionally made the thing more about their set-up than what a field is doing on the course, like they hold the keys to the soul of the tournament...not the interplay of great players, seeking a valued prize...

[Jason Thurman]

The US Open has built a brand. It 100% has an identity - The Toughest Test in Golf.


Is that my favorite identity? Nah. I prefer The Masters and The Open. But not every tournament can be my favorite. And I do look forward to the anticipated carnage of a US Open.


In real life, that carnage doesn't generally come to fruition. Sure, there was 7 at Shinny in '04. I thought what they did to Merion was a travesty - half of the course's architectural brilliance was covered in overgrown rough. I wish they'd get over the stimp readings when playing on poa and try to maintain putting surfaces instead of plinko surfaces.


But I sorta respect that they're willing to push the edge. And I'm probably more disappointed in tournaments like the one at Erin Hills, where there's a decided lack of carnage (on a course that dished plenty of pain to me when I played it...), than the ones where there's a lot of it.


The average golfer is overmatched by damn near every golf course they play. I have no problem with overmatching the pros now and then. It's almost refreshingly relatable, and it makes for champions that loom large.

[Tom_Doak]

The US Open has built a brand. It 100% has an identity - The Toughest Test in Golf.

But that's the stupid part.  They could certainly change direction on that anytime they wanted to, but every time they do, a bunch of yahoos whine about how Pinehurst or Chambers Bay "wasn't a REAL U.S. Open".  So the pendulum swings back to stupid.


They could let another tournament take up the mantra of being The Toughest Test in Golf, except I think a lot of players would skip it, if it wasn't a major.

[Steve Wilson]

Tom Doak says:[/size]

They could let another tournament take up the mantra of being The Toughest Test in Golf, except I think a lot of players would skip it, if it wasn't a major.[/color]
[/size][/color]
[/size]Probably true that a lot of them would skip it.  [/color][/size]Makes sense to me as it wouldn't be much fun.  [/color][/size] Why risk being embarrassed for anything less than a top prize and prestige?   It's all about risk/reward.[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()