Rarely have the two major opens in one year had such a disparity in the winning scores -- a difference of 23 shots. Which was the better test? My own criteria (others may differ...): the extent to which the course demanded strategic thinking; the demands put on various facets of a player's game; the course offering alternative approaches/scenarios  with varying outcomes (in the risk vs. reward vein).

It's not a query about which is the better course, or the one that produced a "better" or more worthy winner. Rather, under open conditions set by the USGA and R&A, which was the better test of golf for the world's best players? (Both, in my view, produced notable leader boards and not-out-of-left-field winners.)

Yet the winner at Hoylake who "chose such a different strategy than his pursuers - a strategy that fit his game, but that nonetheless many others could have tried but did not - tells me that the mental test was greater at Hoylake..." was unable to make the cut at Winged Foot.

The strategy that he employed at Hoylake, take less club and put it in the fairway, was never even considered at Winged Foot where, as you put it, "the only thing involved for those guys was just missing the rough..." and yet he failed to do this consistently.

Why is his strategy at Hoylake so praised while his apparent lack of one at Winged Foot not vilified?

I believe the answer lies in his success. Consider, if he won at Winged Foot and failed to make the cut at Hoylake change your view of his strategy in attacking the course? Neither success nor failure defines whether a strategy used was good or not, it just shows that it succeeded or didn't.

I believe both courses presented great, but decidedly different types of tests.

Philip:

Well asked and well-said.  I too believe both courses presented great but decidedly different tests.  I just also believe the test at Hoylake was more complete.

I think the reason for Tigers' club choices in New York was that Winged Foot being so much effectively LONGER and generally softer, he could not succeed with an irons-only strategy - his shots into those generally raised, sand-ringed greens would have been way too long to allow for a decent chance at success.  Tiger is many things but stupid he is not.  

Perhaps for some, this makes it the greater test - I fully agree that if pure long and straight ball-striking only is considered, WF was the sterner test.

I just don't see that any golfer had much choice about how to play Winged Foot, as it was set up by the USGA.  Obviously the choices were aplenty at Hoylake.

Add into it the greater creativity in shot-making allowed for at Hoylake, and for me the test is greater.

But in the end, both were very, very fine tests of championship golf.  Perhaps it is apples and oranges.

TH

ps to Jamie - our posts crossed - do you really think Tiger could have had success with 2iron/3wood strategy off the tee at WF?  I mean the same "no drivers" strategy employed at Hoylake?  I don't/.  He'd be leaving way too long approaches.  As it was, from what I saw he DID hit a lot of non-drivers... he was just rusty and a lot of THOSE found the rough!

Tom, his ability to play the Open from a mental standpoint surely had almost nothing to do with how he examined the course prior to the Open and the strategy he chose to employ.

It most certainly impacted on his ability to execute that strategy.

Though WF played decidedly longer than Hoylake, the unanimous hue and cry of "you idiot Mickelson put away your driver on 18" shows that these guys surely could have played the course with a more conservative approach. Consider, which holes at WF did Tiger, Phil, Colin Furyk, etc... HAVE to hit driver on in order to DRAMATICALLY increase their odds on parring them? I don't believe there may have been more than one or possibly two.

I believe that when a tour pro looks at a course like WF they forget that what is presented to them is 'hit it in the fairway and then on the green, take a run at birdie and gratefully accept par.' They just don't seem to want to play with that conservative mindset.

Example, Monty on 18. Why go to a shorter club? If he hits the one in his hand he goes center of the green (the preferred location anyway) and has a better than average chance to two-putt from there. Listening to the addrenaline pumping through his veins, he simply tried to hit too good a shot and missed it.  

Tom,

Like you, I don't think he could've had much success employing that same strategy at Winged Foot.  The design and setup just wouldn't allow it like it did at Hoylake.

As you said, the player's choices at Winged Foot were far more limited to what they encountered at Hoylake.  At WF, they were damned either way.

Jim:

I probably should have been more clear -- relative to par. Ogilvy at +5; Tiger at -18.

Good point Dr. Bill

The added creativity required for recovery, in Liverpool, made it closer to the way golf should be presented.