Aside from their otherworldly putting, what occurs to me after watching the morning matches on Friday is that the Euros play humps, bumps, hollows and shelves a lot better than the Americans do. Time and again when the shot needed to be kept above or below, or left or right, of a certain spot on the green, the Euros were better at playing the correct shot.

I'm much more impressed with Oakland Hills -- particularly its greens -- than I was when I watched the '95 Open on TV. Maybe newer cameras and television techniques are better at capturing contours than they were ten years ago, but this is a obviously a golf course where your rolls and your bounces really matter. And the Euros, so far, are playing those rolls and bounces a lot better than the USA.

Several examples from the day's premier match: First hole, first match, Monty and Harrington play the bank shot off the left side of the green to get close to a ight pin, while Tiger and Phil end up at the bottom of the punchbowl (and Phil remains there after his first putt rolls back to him.)

Tiger carries a 7-iron a couple of feet too far and bounces his approach off the green on #2, while Harrington flies his in under the pin for an easy birdie.

On #12, Phil has about 90 yards to a front right pin and leaves his approach on the upper shelf. Harrington uses that self to draw one back for a five-foot birdie.

Yes, this could all be a matter of execution rather than strategy, but it sure looks like the Euros are more comfortable hitting the required shots at Oakland Hills than the Americans are. Is it the contours?
 

If the USA wanted a home court advantage, they should pick a regular tour stop course and set it up to yield four or five under for the average round.

Choosing an Open venue just makes the US players revert to their US Open performances, which for the most part are not too good.

I've tried to advance this argument several times before. Put simply, the PGA (not the PGATOUR) picks the courses without worrying about player experience on the course.  That's why you get some great courses that Tour players have never seen.  

It's not such a huge disadvantage, except in comparison to the fact that the Euros pick courses that they regularly play.  Secondly, the PGA sets the courses up at green speeds that the Euros are much more used to.

If they wanted to give the advantage to the Americans, they would speed up the greens, I think.  Courses that would be more to the US liking would be a longer, with faster greens.

Firestone, Muirfield Village (I know the US lost there once), Cog Hill, Torrey Pines, and Sawgrass kind of come to mind as courses where the US players would be at a comfort advantage at least.

The K-Club is a course that the US players will like, but the fact that the Euro team plays there every year (also Valderrama, Belfry and Celtic Manor) will mean another win for the Euros...

Face it, they want it more, and they play better in the Ryder Cup...

Well, Ian, despite your disagreement with me, I agree with you.

At least, with your second observation. In fact, I wrote essentially the same thing on another thread. And that may well have more to do with why the Euros have gotten off to another strong start than compatibility with the course.

Still, for a parkland course, there sure seem to be a lot of places to bounce balls off of.

Have they organised their mowing patterns to accentuate the humps and bumps? They seem to show up more clearly than is usual on TV.

I'll tell you what seems out of place on Oakland Hills.

Where are the square teeing grounds?

Plus, this notion of giving an advantage to the home team by micro-managing the choice in venue, is reprehensible.

Yes, it still is.

Oakland Hills was a great course for anybody who was putting well and striking the ball well and not gagging.  So, I guess you're right, it was great for the Euros.