Brandel vs the USGA setup

[Ben Hollerbach]

Does Augusta not provide enough challenges? Score to par wise yesterday was not anything we haven't seen there before.

We've never seen an opening round like this at the Masters. Have there ever been two -8's in the first round of any Masters ever? In 2020, when the Masters was played in November, and the turf conditions were not "Masters like", there were three -7s. No -8s. The last opening -8 was in 2015 with Jordan Spieth. Next best that year was -5, which would be 5th in this US Open.

So if your point is "the Masters if fine, then this US Open should be too", I'm saying when a course is played under typical local weather conditions,  and it defends itself worse than any of the 87 Masters, played in a variety of weather conditions, it is an indication that we may not be looking at a championship course.

[George Pazin]

Couldn't care less about score or defending par, but I'm weird like that.


Don't get anyone who advocates growing rough or narrowing fairways as a means of "defense" for a course, but I'm weird like that.


I will say, seems like many are choosing to work the ball into greens, or they have tweaked the shot tracer thing. Looks compelling to me.


Go Tony Finau!

[Ben Hollerbach]

Ben,

I understand your point in concept.  However when the course is altered so much just for one event, I think score becomes a lot more subjective and not very useful to determining "quality".  What would the finishing score have been in all those US Opens if they hadn't:

- Converted two par 5s to 4s?
- Brought the rough lines in for 20-25 wide fairways?
- Grown the rough to 4-6 inches?
- Let the greens bake out and tuck pins?
- Shave the banks to run errant balls into trouble/hazards?

If that's all it takes the same could be done to a local course here in Utah with 7500 yard tees and it will almost certainly produce a relatively high finishing score.  Does that mean the course would be promoted to among the greats?

Thank you for openly considering the point.

• Most converted par 5's really aren't "par" 5's anymore.  They should be converted to 4's for the home course's championship tees.
• The question about the rough lines isn't if they should be brought in, it's if they should be that wide in the first place.  A championship course needs to challenge players off the tee, and 40+ yard wide fairways almost never does that. In nearly all cases you need wind to make wide fairways challenging.
• I wouldn't advocate for keeping the rough at 4-6", but I see no issue with letting it grow taller for a tournament if it will grow.  Tall grass being a penalty has been a part of the game since it began.
• The greens don't need to be baked out. Oak hill's weren't baked out, and it was fine. Augusta's are never baked out and they are some of the greatest in the world. If you need baked out greens to defend par it's a bad design. 
• There is nothing wrong with tucking pins. Much of what has been applauded within Oak Hill's restoration was the reclamation of interesting tucked areas from the old greens. I don't recall anyone complaining about tucked pins a month ago, it seems like many more were complementary. Tucked pins should always be available when needed.

As I said in the prior reply to Alex, a high finishing score doesn't indicate a great course. But a low finish score indicates it's not a championship test. 

[jeffwarne]

Does Augusta not provide enough challenges? Score to par wise yesterday was not anything we haven't seen there before.

We've never seen an opening round like this at the Masters. Have there ever been two -8's in the first round of any Masters ever? In 2020, when the Masters was played in November, and the turf conditions were not "Masters like", there were three -7s. No -8s. The last opening -8 was in 2015 with Jordan Spieth. Next best that year was -5, which would be 5th in this US Open.

So if your point is "the Masters if fine, then this US Open should be too", I'm saying when a course is played under typical local weather conditions,  and it defends itself worse than any of the 87 Masters, played in a variety of weather conditions, it is an indication that we may not be looking at a championship course.

If a mini tour player or the 100th ranked player on the Korn Ferry Tour had shot 62, I might agree.
DJ right behind them-pretty good top 3.


When the USGA dares to do something different, they might occasionally lean to the side of easy.(or well conditioned)
Having bumpy dead greens protected par really well at Pebble in 2010, and Shinny in '04 and '18.
8 footers were almost impossible-yesterday they were almost automatic for the players who shot low, rewarding great putters.


Of course, all that said, I hope for dry sunny conditions saturday

[Dan_Callahan]

Maybe I’m an asshole, but I enjoy watching pros get beat up at the US Open. In the same way I secretly hope the rain is coming down sideways at the Open Championship.

[Tim Martin]

I don’t want to put the kiss of death on Fowler who I’m a fan of but -11 after 21 holes in a U.S. Open is too low. I would love to see LACC show some teeth.

[Tom Birkert]

The US Open used to be the tournament I looked forward to the most. To see them shoot -8 is sickening to me. It's meant to be the one week per year when the pros face a truly difficult challenge.


Shinnecock a couple of years ago was the perfect set up (until the Sunday when they acquiesced to the bitching and moaning and watered the course, resulting in a 63). Oakmont normally delivers as well.


It should be firm. It should be fast. The greens should be rock hard. The winning score should be around even par.


LACC is a wonderful, wonderful course, but I doubt that the Members will be happy about the scoring.

[Bruce Katona]

The sun's now out for the afternoon pairings. The course may now show some of its fangs.

[Peter Sayegh]

I would love to see LACC show some teeth.

Tim, WHY???

Historical reverence?

[Tim Martin]

The US Open used to be the tournament I looked forward to the most. To see them shoot -8 is sickening to me. It's meant to be the one week per year when the pros face a truly difficult challenge.


Shinnecock a couple of years ago was the perfect set up (until the Sunday when they acquiesced to the bitching and moaning and watered the course, resulting in a 63). Oakmont normally delivers as well.


It should be firm. It should be fast. The greens should be rock hard. The winning score should be around even par.


LACC is a wonderful, wonderful course, but I doubt that the Members will be happy about the scoring.

It’s always been my favorite tournament because of the unique test it presented. I’m with Tom in that this is not indicative of same.

[Tim Martin]

I would love to see LACC show some teeth.

Tim, WHY???

Historical reverence?

Peter-It’s not the Catalina Wine Mixer it’s the f—king U.S. Open.

[Lawson Klotz]

What I have found most interesting is where tee shots are gathering on holes like 5 and 8. Course conditions might be too good to highlight the character of some of the more canted fairways. I can’t recall many shots off of side hill lies.

[MCirba]

This is a Masterclass in Strategic Golf.

So thoughtful, decisive play combined with amazing execution yields more birdies. 

And, the bomb and gouge guys who hate to have/make choices start tripping over themselves.

What's not to LOVE?

[Jim Hoak]

Whatever--I'm just glad the course reasserted itself today.  Not the least because it made things a lot more interesting.

[Tom_Doak]

Brandel’s take is exactly what we expect from a washed up short hitter who can’t compete.  “Thick rough and trees bring out true champions.”  That doesn’t work anymore, and it’s boring to watch.


I have no more sympathy for the litany of posters who demand that the course “defend par”.  Par was abandoned by the governing bodies 25-30 years ago and trying to fix that with a course setup once a year is pointless.


LACC is a great course and if it is no longer a good enough test for great players, that just shows the fundamentals of equipment are out of whack.

[Ian Cox]

There have been some great points made on this thread.


Greens that were alive and smooth(even in the afternoon) were part of what wasn't mentioned.
they are often super fast and bumpy which definitely protects par....


Brandel is right about slower greens and interesting pins.
Not so much about everything else.
That's true in general, but people have simply substituted the word "good" for fast, and will actually embrace bumpy, unhealthy greens, even aerified greens, if they are fast.
bonkers to me.


As someone pointed out, it's one round.




FYI, I tried a mini driver yesterday, which is 1/2 inch longer than the driver I grew up with.
My clubhead speed is 7 mph slower with it than my gamer and similar to my 3 wood.

Forgetting the ProV1 multi layer effect, the rebounding face, the waffle sized low spinning head(all over the face now)and the ultra light shaft...




These guys are really, really good, and are fully optimized.
But we need to stop kidding ourselves that all courses need to be adjusted, changed, redesigned, lengthened, narrowed, firmed up, kill the grass and bumpied up, or God forbid TPCed/watery graved up to "protect par".


If protecting par is the goal(I'm not saying it is), the answer is stunningly simple.
Have any of them take out Jack Nicklaus's clubs, put some new grips on, and see how they do at LACC in any conditions.

This (the last paragraph) is where I would start… I’m guessing that there is a moment in time when clubs, balls and courses all provided the challenge that golf course architects intended (and GCA fans enjoy/wish to see more of!). Once that moment (date) is established let’s provide the equipment of that era to the worlds best, and voila, we now know how much further Rory hit it than, Hogan, Miller, Seve (yes, different eras but we weren’t having this conversation at any time during those eras) any gains would be fine with me.


My final thought is that mankind’s physical efforts have been tracked for decades, sporting gains have been small, often really small, what would the 100m world record be if both sports gained the same improvement since the introduction of Pro V1 and high performing titanium drivers?

[Phil Young]

156 players began their quest for the championship Thursday. Using clubs and balls that carry ridiculous lengths and also fly straight , after 2 rounds, 118 are OVER par. Especially as the two most difficult rounds with the highest scores are almost always the last two, I'll be surprised if the majority of the 27 players who currently are between par and -2, won't be at par or better come Sunday night. 


I'd say the course is proving itself to be both a wonderful design and a great challenge.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Is there any other sport where technology so changed a sport? MLlB baseball banned metal bats, which seems perfectly analogous. Auto racing doesn’t count. The only other sport I can think of is pole vaulting.

[Jason Topp]

Michael Breed made a similar but more nuanced argument yesterday on his radio show.  He argued that trees/rough/narrow fairways force more interesting strategic decisions at the highest level.  He did not bemoan the scoring so much as not seeing players agonizing over whether to take a shot on or to play safely.  He thought they got the setup perfect at the Country Club last year but missed the mark here.


We now have a track record of wider setups at the US Open - Chambers Bay, Erin Hills LACC and Winged Foot.  Each has received similar criticism.  None has felt like a U.S. Open. 


Not sure I have a strong opinion.  I had hoped the wider setups would demonstrate how such setups lead to more interesting championships.  I cannot say with confidence they have.  There seems to be much less pressure on the players off the tee and as a result less pressure on approach shots. 

[Thomas Dai]

Even with the same course length and set-up I doubt the scoring would be as good if the elites 300+ drives were only 250 and their other club distances similarly reduced. Approach shots would be played from further back and thus wouldn’t be finishing so close to the target as regularly as at present. The historical concept of ‘par’ might even be a bit more relevant once again.
As to fairway width and tree set-up, narrower fairways and trees just play into the hands of the physically stronger player as they are able to muscle the ball out of the manicured rough and fly the ball over any higher trees. Different types of player would likely be in contention if the fairways were wider, the rough thinner and less trees as they would be able to use craft and angles with their tee and approach shots. This latter point is something I’d have thought a washed-up shorter hitter in particular would understand. Firm fairway and green conditions would be good too and the removal of some of the ridiculous multi-length rough and the greens and bunkers.
Atb

[George Pazin]

Michael Breed made a similar but more nuanced argument yesterday on his radio show.  He argued that trees/rough/narrow fairways force more interesting strategic decisions at the highest level.

I guess I'd simply ask, do they? If they do anything, I'd argue they dictate play, not encourage decisions. And not all that effectively at that. I think the vast majority simply bomb and gouge regardless, hoping it's their week and praying they're on point.


Seeing Brooks whine about the course just leads me to believe the course and set up are perfect. There's nothing more ironic than Brooks just the chorus of complaints...

[Wayne_Kozun]

   Is there any other sport where technology so changed a sport? MLlB baseball banned metal bats, which seems perfectly analogous. Auto racing doesn’t count. The only other sport I can think of is pole vaulting.

Javelin. The had to redesign the javelin to not fly as far as it was starting to be thrown so far that there became a risk of impaling runners on the track beyond the javelin landing area, or into the crowd.

[David_Tepper]

"We now have a track record of wider setups at the US Open - Chambers Bay, Erin Hills LACC and Winged Foot.  Each has received similar criticism.  None has felt like a U.S. Open."

I have no problem with a more wide open US Open set up. Narrow fairways, ankle-deep rough, tree-line fairways, etc. tend to produce one dimensional golf and one dimensional golfers.

Hale Irwin, Curtis Strange, Lee Janzen and Scott Simpson have won 8 US Opens between them. They are all fine, world-class golfers. But can anyone say they have been inspired by watching them play?     

[David_Tepper]

"Is there any other sport where technology so changed a sport?"

I think the change in tennis racquets & strings has changed that sport as much, if not more than golf. Despite the changes in golf equipment, the stance, grip and golf swing have not changed all that much over the years.

The methods for gripping a tennis racquet and hitting forehands & backhands changed dramatically when the sport moved on from wood racquets.  As a result, the way the game is played has changed dramatically as well.

[David Cronan]

"Is there any other sport where technology so changed a sport?"

I think the change in tennis racquets & strings has changed that sport as much, if not more than golf. Despite the changes in golf equipment, the stance, grip and golf swing have not changed all that much over the years.


The methods for gripping a tennis racquet and hitting forehands & backhands changed dramatically when the sport moved on from wood racquets.  As a result, the way the game is played has changed dramatically as well.

The size of the "sweet spot" of the tennis racquet has TRIPLED from the wooden racquets. In addition, as you noted, the invention and technological advances of polyester strings has taken the game from finesse to power, which mirrors that of golf played at the highest level. And the grips used in tennis have followed suit in order to maximize power.