There is a great article in Golf Digest that reviews course set up issues in recent US Opens and discusses the philosophy of the new person that will be in charge of set up. I don't have the article in front of me right now, but some of the new ideas are interesting:

1.  Less over the edge green speeds and hole locations
2.  Narrower fairways
3.  Wetter fairways to limit driving distance
4.  Variable rough depth
       Lower rough near fairway and deeper rough farther away
       lower rough on long par fours to tempt players to go for the green
       Deep rough on shorter holes to penalize the player despite use of a short iron.

5.  A willingness to see lower scores when the wind does not blow.


The article talks about these measures as a more reasonable response to technology but does not address the role the USGA has in the technology issue in the first place.  

What do you think?

I still think that slowing the greens significantly would make a huge difference.

great..........all we need, another excuse for my super to use more H2O  

Jason, you say these are the philosophy of the "new person".  I have not read the article.  But, doesn't it just seem like more odd ball response to the length problem, by variably and excessively manipulating the maintenence meld of a course, just for their tournament play?  Of the list you have provided that are suggested responses, hardly anything fits the ideal maintenence meld of Pinehurst (or what I have come to understand as Ross's original intent).  Like Mr. Blanks says and I heartily agree, "Why dosent the USGA just play the US Open at a 7500 yd TPC and quit ruining the classical courses."

Equipment Standards

In a historical context, the game has seen progressive developments in the clubs and balls available to golfers who, through almost six centuries, have sought to improve their playing performance and enjoyment.

While generally welcoming this progress, the USGA will remain vigilant when considering equipment Rules. The purpose of the Rules is to protect golf’s best traditions, to prevent an over-reliance on technological advances rather than skill, and to ensure that skill is the dominant element of success throughout the game.

The Equipment Standards staff is located in the Research and Test Center at Golf House®. This high-level technology facility houses both the specialized golf club and ball testing equipment and the highly educated and skilled individuals whose work is focused on understanding the game’s technology and new equipment’s potential effect upon the game.

During 2004, there were several noteworthy actions regarding equipment rules.

Putter design rules interpretations were revised for dimensional and shape considerations. These modifications expand the types of putter designs allowed under the Rules, provide putter designers with clearer guidelines of what is permitted, and continue to ensure that skill remains the dominant element of success throughout the game.

The test for determining golf ball distance has been updated by utilizing test conditions based on current PGA Tour players’ swings and clubs. This makes the test more relevant to today’s golf. With the implementation of this test, ball distance is more firmly capped at current levels.

Driving distance, as measured on the PGA Tour, showed a small increase from 2003 to 2004. We believe that the effect of capping ball distance along with the caps placed on driver spring effect, head size, and club length will continue to keep Tour driving distance growth at a moderate level. It is expected that added distance on the PGA Tour in the future will be caused primarily by increased player athleticism.

Substantial progress has been made on a ball research project being carried out at the USGA Research and Test Center. This study, which was begun in 2002, is a wide-ranging investigation into golf ball design, construction, materials, and performance. The added knowledge gained by the USGA will permit better golf ball rulemaking in the future. While there are no current plans to make any changes to the Rules regulating golf balls, it is important that the USGA be prepared in case that becomes necessary.

What a bunch of spin meisters!  Do these people really believe this crap?  The USGA has proven over and over that they are not prepared nor inclined to do anything but get along and go along with manufacturers, period.  

All - for clarification, this is the guy that will replace Tom Meeks for next year's US Open (Winged Foot).  I can't recall his name.  

The USGA has altered the maintenence meld of every course on which a US Open has been held since 1951.  It is part of its identity.  Have any of those courses been ruined by the setup used by the USGA for the Open?  Probably Oakland Hills.  Are there other examples?

To be fair, I don't think he was talking about soggy fairways, but slowing them down a bit.  

It sounds to me like he is thinking of narrowing the fairways even further than the USGA already has in recent years.

I do think that varying the rough heights is an interesting concept.  To the extent it makes the play out of the rough from 200 yards a more interesting choice, I am in favor of it.

It is clear that dialing back the distance the ball flies would render all of this unnecessary.  But, if you assume the USGA will not do it, I think softening the fairways a bit should be considered for a US Open, particularly in light of Geoff Shackelford's analysis that you cannot grow rough high enough to negatively impact scoring from 160 and in.

What the USGA should do one year is revert to a mid-80's setup, let the scores go low, and use it as evidence in the inevitable lawsuit after it dials back the distance the ball flies.  

Interestingly, William Flynn suggested that the USGA own and operate their own courses for the Open, partially so that they would not interfere with classic courses but mostly because so few memberships would find the length and conditions playable on an everyday basis that it wasn't cost-effective for them to make those changes that would be required over the years to keep up with technological evolution.

Flynn also proposed (if needed, as a lesser of two evils) watering fairway landing areas to prevent structural changes to courses that would host Open championships.  The effective lengthening of the courses would prevent actual stretching of courses that did not have built in elasticity; most classic era courses.

Nothing a nice dog leg can't solve.

Hey, maybe one day HUGE fans with giant blades can produce high winds directly into the tee.  That would shorten ball distance.  

I'm tired of US Open set ups. Meeks is a scoundrel and a loon.