How much does score matter to you at the US Open ?

[Matt_Ward]

Be curious to see what people think.

No doubt the topic has gone through a major change point for many -- clearly the designs and what has been to various courses over the years has made for some real comments -- pro and con.

I frankly don't care much about final scores -- so long as there is some deterrent for poor play and the flip side -- rewards for those who do execute. I also like to see players be encouraged to use drivers more -- rather than take the automatic conservative layback approach to playing.

Frankly, I have found the work carried out by Mike Davis to be the best thing to have happened to the US Open in quite some time.

[Paul Carey]

Matt,

I agree with your view that I do not care the score but I think those guys should be 5 to 10 under par.   Unless the weather is the problem scores higher than that mean the course is likely "tricked up". 

paul

[mike_beene]

But it is fun to see it get to the edge and see how they handle some unfairness.I do like that chipping seems relevant again.

[Ken Moum]

I am endlessly entertained by watching the pros deal with the mind game that a low par figure creates.

So, in that sense, the score is everything at a US Open.

If par were set at a number that the yardage really calls for--say 76--those guys would cruise around the course.

Ken

[Rob_Waldron]

As I recall low score wins regardless of whether it is over par, under par or even par....

The USGA's practice of making par 5 holes into par 4 holes with greens not designed to receive long irons is ridiculous. I saw the new USGA tees on #6 and #9 at Congressional this week. The holes will both play well over 600 yards and will remain par 5's for the Open. Unfortunately #11 will be designated as a par 4 once again. 

[PCCraig]

Be curious to see what people think.

No doubt the topic has gone through a major change point for many -- clearly the designs and what has been to various courses over the years has made for some real comments -- pro and con.

I frankly don't care much about final scores -- so long as there is some deterrent for poor play and the flip side -- rewards for those who do execute. I also like to see players be encouraged to use drivers more -- rather than take the automatic conservative layback approach to playing.

Frankly, I have found the work carried out by Mike Davis to be the best thing to have happened to the US Open in quite some time.

Matt-

It's about time we can agree about something to do with the Open.

Scoring and the USGA's mentality has gotten much much better over the past 5 years or so. I never like hearing "xxxxxx Golf Club beats up field" as a headline in a paper or newscast, which usually always ended with a USGA official being quoted as saying their Championship and venue causes the best to rise to the top...like Steve Jones.  The bottom line is that the course shouldn't be the story...which of course you saw last year at TP.

[Emil Weber]

I am endlessly entertained by watching the pros deal with the mind game that a low par figure creates.

So, in that sense, the score is everything at a US Open.

If par were set at a number that the yardage really calls for--say 76--those guys would cruise around the course.

Ken

I agree. It is interisting to see how the pros deal with the high figures.

[Scott Warren]

As a spectator, I can't get into soccer for the sheer fact that there is little for me to cheer in a 0-0 result (I realise there are some who can enjoy such a game). Similarly, I find it hard to get excited watching a professional golfer staring down six-footers for par all day en route to a 74 that leaves him two off the lead.

Perhaps more than I want to see golfers actually making birdies and eagles, I want to see the pros tempted to try for birdies and eagles - whether they make 3 or walk off with 6 - because that is exciting golf to me.

So it's not the score as such, it's the style of play the course encourages that leads to it, whether it's a 67 or a 77.

I like to cheer success or failure, not a mere fight for survival forced by the course setup.

[Gary Slatter]

I really enjoy watching the US OPEN because of the way it is set up, it's US Open style.  
But I also enjoy watching the OPEN because of the way it is set up, the R&A doesn't mind seeing birdies being made.  
Both events are so different, and both are wonderful entertainment.  
NOw if the question was which would you prefer IF YOU WERE PLAYING I would have to go with the Open style.

I don't mind seeing players not use their drivers.  I also love seeing them miss the fairway when they have dropped down to a utility club or long iron off the tee.  

OT nice to see Captain Pavin playing the 2010 course this week, hope he makes the cut.

[Anthony Gray]

  The exitement of a player going low rarely is enjoyed at a final round of a US Open. This STINKS!! They are trying to define the best player by ptotecting par. This STINKS!! Give me the other three majors where the winners charge in insted of limp in.

  Anthony

[Kenny Baer]

It doesn't and often times the scores are much lower than they seem; by calling par 5's par 4's it changes nothing except the plus or minus next to the name.  I don't understand why the USGA is so concerned about protecting par; I would love to see them elliminate par and just keep track by the actual numb 8)ers.

[Jamie Barber]

As a spectator, I can't get into soccer for the sheer fact that there is little for me to cheer in a 0-0 result

Philistine!

I don't care about the score but I don't want to see bomb and gouge golf.

[Dan Boerger]

The preoccupation with PAR has made this a very different major, IMO.

At some point, a set up becomes unfair. I realize "fairness" is open to massive interpretation, but I'm of the opinion a good shot should "generally" be rewarded and a bad shot "generally" penalized. If the US Open made every fairway the size of a tee box, scores would soar, but someone would inevitably win the tournament.

If the USGA wants to protect par, simply print a scorecard with every par 5 a par 4 and every par 4 under 400 yards a par 3. Then, the players can have a more normal set up and the guys in the blue jackets would be satisfied with no red numbers.

[Anthony Gray]

  The set up can make the tournament boreing. Watching the best players in golf pitching out to the fairway is not spectator friendly.

  Anthony

[Cliff Hamm]

I think score does matter and it should be a bit under par.  It simply does not make for exciting golf when par and a very occasional bogey is leading the tournament.  I am hopeful that the USGA is beginning to see the light and will have more benign set ups.

I also feel that the primary reason Baltusrol will not get another open is because of the low scoring there.  We can argue the architectural merits but it has identified excellent champions and has had exciting tournaments ----- 1967 - Nicklaus; 1980 - Nicklaus; 1993 - Janzen.  In 2006 the PGA got it right and had the course firm.  Mickleson won with I believe a 276.  I might argue that these 4 champions and the tournaments can stand with any 4 from other, more highly rated courses.

[Rick Sides]

My friend and I were just talking about this the other day.  We both like to see the US Open play a bit tougher than most tournaments.  I think the rough should be up a bit on the sides of the fairway and around the green, but not so high that it should sprain wrists.  As I watch a lot of tournaments during the season, a lot of courses are set up for bombing the ball of the tee and a short iron into the green; even if players hit a bad tee shot because the rough is so short.  I like the way the last US Open had multiple tees used during the rounds.  I think having Mediate and Tiger in the finals showed that the course played fair for many different styles of golf. 

[John Burzynski]

As a spectator, I can't get into soccer for the sheer fact that there is little for me to cheer in a 0-0 result

Philistine!

I don't care about the score but I don't want to see bomb and gouge golf.

I would love to see golf scored by the overall number of strokes, but with TV, that ain't gonna happen.  This whole business of tracking +5, -3 whatever started with TV, as a way to gauge and compare scores of players on different holes.  Less math for the uninitiated I guess.

I like to see a tough course, especially for the US Open, it should be the toughest 4-day challenge that the pros play all year here in the US.   I am not so sure that challenge equates to 'protecting par' all of the time.

[Joe Bausch]

Was is not easier to 'control' the course conditions somewhat, hence the scoring, at Torrey Pines last year since the weather is (and was) much more predictable in the SoCal environment than it could be this year at BB where the possibility of rain is much higher? 

[Tom_Doak]

The problem with this is that people always think about it in the abstract, instead of the specific.

What's the low scoring record for the US Open?  Is it still Nicklaus v Aoki at Baltusrol?  That Open didn't suck.

What's the low scoring record for the Open Championship?  Is it still Tom Watson v Nicklaus at Turnberry?

Anybody see a theme developing?

[JESII]

Tom,

Tiger holds both of those records en route to blowout victories...his US Open record actually tied the Nicklaus / Aoki total score but was more under par...

[BCrosby]

Tom -

Exactly. Even when Tiger blew blew away the field at ANGC and PB, did those tournaments suck?

Compared to, say, Zach Johnson's rivetting win?

[Matt_Ward]

Gents:

Let's not kid ourselves -- the name of the person winning determines plenty of how people feel about the venue.

Torrey Pines is stilll a lack luster place but the way Tiger won there and how he won will forever keep that Open on the short list of memorable moments. On the flip side you can have an event at OH/S and have it won by Steve Jones and it will be quickly forgotten.

The USGA's fixation of scoring -- keeping players at or near par -- results in courses being created that sabotage creative shotmaking. You simply get robot-like result oriented players (see the likes of Scott Simpson as a good example) or worse yet a player like Andy North who won two US Opens.

I like to see players tempted to use drivers whenever possible. If set-ups are made to go the totally "defensive" route then you have the plodding style of golf that becomes a real bore.

The US Open should test players beyond what a standard tour event does. But, the set-up cannot become a farce where total luck becomes the rule or the event is nothing more than a putting contest. Mike Davis has done well with the last three Opens he has handled -- I'm curious to see how BB plays in the forthcoming weeks.

[JohnV]

As I recall low score wins regardless of whether it is over par, under par or even par....

The USGA's practice of making par 5 holes into par 4 holes with greens not designed to receive long irons is ridiculous. I saw the new USGA tees on #6 and #9 at Congressional this week. The holes will both play well over 600 yards and will remain par 5's for the Open. Unfortunately #11 will be designated as a par 4 once again. 

As you said, low score wins so what difference does it matter if the USGA calls something a 4 or a 5?  How does that change the golf hole?  It doesn't, but what it does do is get inside some of the player's heads.  The mental part of the game is as important as the rest of the game and just changing a number on the scorecard makes them think a little bit more.

The thought that is going into this year's US Open were they have a par 5 that is shorter than a par 4 because Mike Davis realizes which hole is easily reachable in two and which one isn't is what I'd prefer.

I ran a US Open qualifier this year where I called a 499 yard hole a par 4 because it was downhill and the good players could carry a bunker on the corner leaving 210 or less yards in.  It is a par 4 for them, just like many of the holes that the USGA renumbers are for the guys at the US Open.

[Carl Rogers]

  The set up can make the tournament boreing. Watching the best players in golf pitching out to the fairway is not spectator friendly.

  Anthony

Anthony, I could not agree more, particularly as Bethpage is set up with the rough starting 60 yards from the green. 

... I thought the whole point of the 500+ yard par 4 was to force all the players to hit driver.

[Eric_Terhorst]

The USGA's fixation of scoring -- keeping players at or near par -- results in courses being created that sabotage creative shotmaking. You simply get robot-like result oriented players (see the likes of Scott Simpson as a good example) or worse yet a player like Andy North who won two US Opens.

I like to see players tempted to use drivers whenever possible. If set-ups are made to go the totally "defensive" route then you have the plodding style of golf that becomes a real bore.

Matt, you've got two causes to the effect--boring golf--identified here.  One is the USGA's fixation on "protecting par,"" the other is "the setup."  To me, the latter is the problem the USGA should rectify--high rough, narrow fairways are utterly monotonous ways to "protect par" and as in the examples you point out, do not seem to readily identify the best players in the world, but the guys who can hit it straightest.

 John VB's comment about the Mike Davis philosophy is intriguing--if a hole is highly probable to be approached in two shots, it ought to be a par 4.  I like that idea.  However, the comments about "getting into golfer's heads" are concerning.  Are the best players in the world really that stupid?  Won't the successful players play these tweener holes as 1/2 par holes, and choose to "go for it" if their tee shots enable them to, and play safe or for an up-n-down if not? 

Sodden thought:  if the USGA is able to willfully change the strategy of elite players simply by changing the par on the scorecard, then all those who criticize golfers as idiots playing a meaningless stick and ball game are correct, and all of the architects who labor long over the design of a strategic golf hole are wasting their time...