[Chris Moore]

I remember being disappointed when I first saw that the 2007 U.S. Open was awarded to Oakmont.  Watching another tournament where players played straight shots down tree-lined corridors made for a snoozefest for me.  And then I went to Oakmont for the championship and saw what I believe to be the best American golf course I have ever personally viewed (Augusta National 1.0 included).  This year's U.S. Open again has me anticipating some disappointment in the quality of the event that that can largely be attributed to the venue (probably the last one of these was 2003 at Olympia Fields).

I know next to nothing about Torrey Pines.  On television, it looks like Firestone-by-the-Sea.  Are we in for another snoozer this year?  Why or why not?  What venues get you excited about he U.S. Open?

[tlavin]

I'm a member at Olympia Fields and I can tell you that Torrey Pines ain't Olympia Fields.  If you were underwhelmed by my club, Torrey won't be the straw that stirs your drink.  Having said that, I'm sure there will be some memorable drama even if the holes wind up seeming rather mundane to some.

[John Kavanaugh]

Tiger at Torrey is like Ruth at Yankee Stadium.  Throw Phil in the mix and it's like if #7 showed up and someone thought, because of the architecture, Fenway would be a better choice for a reunion of Babe and Mickey.   Torrey is the perfect venue for our time and the players we have been delt.

[Phil Benedict]

I think JK is right that the competitors have more to do with how a US Open is remembered than the venue.  If Tiger and Phil are in the mix it will be memorable; if they are out of contention it won't be.

My biggest issue with Torrey Pines is that there's none of the anticipation that comes with an unfamiliar course (or one that hasn't been in the mix for a while) - they just played a tournament there in January.  I feel the same way about Pebble Beach.

[John Moore II]

I think the venue itself does not have to be magnificent in order for the golf on display to be such. Olympia Fields only turned out odd because of weather issues from what I recall. If Torrey can play firm and with a bit of breeze, it will be a real test for these players.

[Tom Huckaby]

I think JK is right that the competitors have more to do with how a US Open is remembered than the venue.  If Tiger and Phil are in the mix it will be memorable; if they are out of contention it won't be.

My biggest issue with Torrey Pines is that there's none of the anticipation that comes with an unfamiliar course (or one that hasn't been in the mix for a while) - they just played a tournament there in January.  I feel the same way about Pebble Beach.

Phil - I think you are right on with the first part.  But re the second, well... I am anticipating this Open MORE because it's at Torrey and they just played there a few months ago... primarily to see how DIFFERENT it will be for the Open!  And I tend to feel the same when it's at Pebble, too.  The other traditional US Open courses, well... it's rare we have a new one or any significant changes, so each does tend to have at least a little been there/done that feel for me.  I definitely am not feeling that way about this one.

TH

[Phil Benedict]

Huck,

I agree with you that Torrey Pines is a laboratory in the differences between a USGA and Tour setup and the effect of playing tournaments at different times of year.  Might be interesting.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

i went to the open at olympia fields, and while it may not have been compelling on tv, i thought the course was quite interesting in person.  i am not, however, looking forward to watching them play torrey pines next week.

[CJ Carder]

I think the venue itself does not have to be magnificent in order for the golf on display to be such. Olympia Fields only turned out odd because of weather issues from what I recall. If Torrey can play firm and with a bit of breeze, it will be a real test for these players.

I agree to an extent.  I am looking forward to the tournament because it's the US OPEN and it's a major, thus the environment surrounding it will be full of anticipation and impending drama (whether it occurs is a different story).  I honestly would feel the same way if they were playing Montana Municipal, but being relatively young, I will also admit that my excitement of the event starts to build much earlier if it's at a course I know relatively little about (i.e. Oakmont, Winged Foot, Shinnecock, etc).

I was excited about Olympia Fields and enjoyed the tournament, and while Furyk winning netted me about $75 (big spender here), I can't help but think that the Furyk - Stephen Leaney duel down the stretch took a lot of air out of the proverbial tournament balloon.

[Jay Kirkpatrick]

CJ - I also won money on Furyk on that Open.  I'd been to Vegas about two weeks early and put $10 down on him at something like 25-1.  It's no wonder I actually enjoyed that event.

[Tim Pitner]

I think JK is right that the competitors have more to do with how a US Open is remembered than the venue.  If Tiger and Phil are in the mix it will be memorable; if they are out of contention it won't be.

Personally, I can imagine many scenarios that would make for a memorable tournament that don't include Tiger and Phil in contention.  I agree, though, that it's more the competition than the course that makes a tournament interesting. 

The question though is whether Torrey Pines is a compelling venue.  I've played TP South (post redo) and enjoyed it.  It's not one of my favorite courses, but it's a fairly solid course (Doak really gave it a 3?  Ouch).  The kikuyu rough is brutal.  I agree with those who say it lacks mystique.  The fall-off from the likes of Shinnecock and Oakmont is pretty steep.  So, I'd say no, it's not a compelling venue, but the tournament may turn out to be compelling if it's a close contest.   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()