Ryan Moore - comments on the USGA & tournament setup

[Sean Leary]

Let me ask.... IF the green on #17 can essentially not hold a shot, then nearly everyone in the field is left with a recovery shot of some kind from around the green, whether it be bunker or rough.

Since the green is the only predictably maintained portion of the golf hole, doesn't it mean that the 200+ yard tee shot is essentially counting on the hope of a decent lie in the rough or bunker for the recovery shot?

Although all players are playing the same hole, their lie in the rough or bunker likely has nothing to do with the skill of their shot.  Isn't this uncertainty the definition of luck?

And, isn't this what Ryan is saying - talking about "tricky", or "luck"?

I know where you are going, but not sure I am on board. If they know the green can't or won't hold a shot why not play it differently, avoid the sand and high grasses/poor lies and lay up? Chip it within 5 feet and walk away happy with par?

Just out of curiosity, how many guys did that on Sunday? I bet none.

Where would you have them lay up to? This is NOT like 10 at Winged Foot due to the angle and nature of the green?

Pretty sure that Casper laid up all 4 days on the 3rd hole at WFW, not the 10th hole.

Oops. My point is the same though...

[Scott Coan]

Scott, which are your favorite US Open setups (not courses, but setups)?

Personally, NOTHING could be worse than the way they set up Bethpage.  I know the rain has affected the course both times they've had the US Open there, but last year's especially was just plain dull.  Pinehurst's setup is my favorite, then Shinnecock.

In terms of setups I just cannot stand watching pros hacking it out out greenside rough.  Much better to watch the bump-and-run.  One of the more interesting shots yesterday was McDowell's put up the hill on 14.  That is a massively tricky shot - you have to gauge how much weight you need to get it up the hill but then not hit it so hard that it falls off the other side.  Even that shot came about 1 or 2 revolutions from running completely off the green, which is a joke.

The USGA's only "par" defense on these 7000 yard courses is the greenside rough and linoleum greens running at 13+.  They will ruin Merion and we will watch the same slogfest once again on one of the world's great golf courses - all so the winning score will be about even par.

[Sven Nilsen]

Its always been a grind, and you've always needed a little luck to win.  If you don't believe me, maybe the folks quoted below will convince you.

1.  "Shoot a lower score than everybody else."

-- Ben Hogan, asked the secret of winning the U.S. Open

2. "Nobody wins the Open. It wins you."

-- Cary Middlecoff, on the U.S. Open

3. "You not only have to be good, but you also have to have two horseshoes up your rear end. You've got to be lucky to win the U.S. Open."

-- Sam Snead

4. "Nobody ever wins an Open. Everybody else just loses it."

-- Bobby Jones

5. "It takes courage to win the U.S. Open, more courage than it takes for any other tournament."

-- Tom Watson

6. "There are more bogeys in the last nine holes of the U.S. Open than in any other tournament in God's creation."

-- Raymond Floyd

[Rick Shefchik]

3. "You not only have to be good, but you also have to have two horseshoes up your rear end. You've got to be lucky to win the U.S. Open."

-- Sam Snead

Snead must have considered himself the most unlucky golfer in history.

[Matt_Ward]

Steve:

The traditionalists will fire back Steve -- who is Ryan Moore? What major has he won? How could he be serious -- didn't Nicklaus and Watson do it.

All kidding aside - I agree w you -- the set-ups at PB were over-the-top -- when people are hellbent on making par a final round score you have to include a whole slew of tricky maneuvers.

[JLahrman]

In terms of setups I just cannot stand watching pros hacking it out out greenside rough.  Much better to watch the bump-and-run.  One of the more interesting shots yesterday was McDowell's put up the hill on 14.  That is a massively tricky shot - you have to gauge how much weight you need to get it up the hill but then not hit it so hard that it falls off the other side.  Even that shot came about 1 or 2 revolutions from running completely off the green, which is a joke.

The USGA's only "par" defense on these 7000 yard courses is the greenside rough and linoleum greens running at 13+.  They will ruin Merion and we will watch the same slogfest once again on one of the world's great golf courses - all so the winning score will be about even par.

Scott I agree with you on most of that, but you didn't answer my question.  This critique can be levelled at the US Open most every year, even when the course is longer.  You singled out this tournament as "one of the more mundane US Opens I've ever watched", which means that you must have thought that Pebble was one of the worst setups.  Personally I thought it was an improvement.  Greenside rough could have been shorter, but the fairway rough was playable, the course was playing firm, the ocean was brought into play, etc.  Overall the setup was better than what I was expecting.

[Terry Lavin]

Here's why I was moderately disappointed with the championship, particularly the final round.  For the past couple years, we've been essentially teased with the kinder and gentler we don't care about par public relations plan from the USGA.  The real first indication of the possibilities was in the Torrey Pines Open, with the dramatic shortening of the par 4 hole, making it driveable and the shortening of the par 3 by the ocean.  This year, we got some shorter holes, to be sure, but they had some murderous consequences (the risk in risk and reward, I know) and then we had murderously long holes.  If length is the only issue, that wouldn't be much of an issue at all, because there would be balance.  The problem to my television observation, was more with the firmness and speed of the turf, especially on the greens.  Given the weather conditions, the USGA had total control of this element of the setup. They were not at the mercy of Mother Nature.  They could and did absolutely control the turf and when they mixed extra hard turf with some very small greens with some treacherous hole locations, it led to some silly golf, or at least to some golf that was pretty unwatchable.  Who thinks it's fun to watch Davis Love III miss ten makeable putts in a row?  The setup didn't live up to what I was expecting as a devotee of Mike Davis.  It just didn't seem consistent to me.  They didn't lose control of the golf course, but it seems to me that they may have missed a chance to have a more exciting conclusion of the championship instead of seven hours of missed putts, hacking out of heather and shots that "almost" stayed on the green only to wind up in the rough.  The balance between fair and unfair, fun and brutal I'm sure is sometimes very tough to strike, but I think they missed it yesterday, especially on a few critical holes.

[Scott Coan]

Scott I agree with you on most of that, but you didn't answer my question.  This critique can be levelled at the US Open most every year, even when the course is longer.  You singled out this tournament as "one of the more mundane US Opens I've ever watched", which means that you must have thought that Pebble was one of the worst setups.  Personally I thought it was an improvement.  Greenside rough could have been shorter, but the fairway rough was playable, the course was playing firm, the ocean was brought into play, etc.  Overall the setup was better than what I was expecting.

It was one of the most mundane because the setup demanded that just about every approach shot be hit not with a potential birdie in mind, but with the thought that I must not hit a shot that's going to potentially play me out of this tournament.  That produces what we got - BORING golf with 30 or 40 foot puts for birdie, recovery shots from perfectly raked bunkers played to 8 or 10 feet, or unplayable lies in waste high fescue surrounding those very same bunkers.

The fast and firm was great as well as the graduated fairway rough.  But then that was coupled with Pebble's tiny greens that were running around 13, surrounded by heavy rough and with grass bordering the bunkers that was at times WAIST deep.  I think it was Ryan Moore that commented how silly it was that if your approach shot landed on a hard brown spot on the green then you were bounding off the green and into the rough, but if it landed 1 foot away from that same spot but on a softer green patch then you could maintain some sort of control.

I watched McDowell get nicely up and down from greenside bunkers a number of times on Sunday.  He was able to do so because he had the opportunity to play the recovery shots.  None of his misses were as bad as Johnson's was on the very first hole (in terms of proximity to the hole), yet DJ had an unplayable lie.   

If they took the mower to all of Pebble's greens surrounds and still had it fast and firm then we could have watched the ball bounce where it was meant to bounce and then let it roll to where it was meant to rest.  If that happened to be the Pacific ocean then so be it, don't be long or right or whatever.

The USGA cannot continue to state that they have no obsession with par when every single US Open ends with the winner on or very close to even par.  Pebble Beach is not a boring golf course, yet the USGA's setup of it made for a very boring competition.

[Sam Morrow]

If he had won what would he have said?

[JSlonis]

If he had won what would he have said?

Probably the same thing.

McDowell won the tournament hitting 58.33% of the greens for the week.  Out of the top 20 finishers, the highest percentage was 66% with the majority under 60%. 

While we all sing the praises of fast and firm, doesn't it only work up to a certain point?  The golf course and the architecture have to be able to support the level of F & F that we saw presented this week.  I don't see that the stats support the notion that quality ballstrking should be or is rewarded.

[Steve_Lovett]

I watched highlights of the '82 US Open tonight...  Both Nicklaus and Watson hit fine shots into #7 that year - both of which would've taken a high bounce and sailed over the green this year.  In fact, Watson's might've sailed over the bunkers into the ocean, deep as it landed on the green. 

Nicklaus made a tricky putt for birdie, and Watson missed an 18-incher. 

I think skill played a greater role in the '82 event, overall. 

This year, McDowell was uncanny in his ability to sink clutch 4 to 6-foot putts for par.  He avoided blowup holes, survived, and scored the best based upon the course presented to all players.  He's an excellent player and deserved to win. 

I really like Pebble Beach. The setting is unlike anywhere else I've seen.  I hope they retain the character, feel, and look of the place, but change certain aspects of how it plays for the '19 Open.   

[Carl Nichols]

Davis Love may have missed a lot of putts, but McDowell made quite a few -- and Davis isn't exactly considered clutch.

[Sean Leary]

Number 8 played WAY easier this year, it seemed. Wonder what the scoring average was compared to 2000 there..

[Sam Morrow]

If he had won what would he have said?

Probably the same thing.

McDowell won the tournament hitting 58.33% of the greens for the week.  Out of the top 20 finishers, the highest percentage was 66% with the majority under 60%. 

While we all sing the praises of fast and firm, doesn't it only work up to a certain point?  The golf course and the architecture have to be able to support the level of F & F that we saw presented this week.  I don't see that the stats support the notion that quality ballstrking should be or is rewarded.

No way he says it if he wins. If he wins he praises Pebble and The USGA for the course set-up.

[Peter Pallotta]

Terry L - very good post. I changed my mind. After watching a good chunk of the final round, there were one too many holes that weren't, well, fun - to play or to watch. But I'm soft-hearted, and maybe it was just seeing the good man and great golfer Ernie Els go 5 over for the week on one Par 3 that decided it for me.
Peter

[Rob Rigg]

I know I am biased - but I watched Ryan for all four of his rounds and he wasn't "inept" in the slightest. He was grinding and grinding for four days and went from T68 on Friday to T33 on Sunday.

Like other guys out there he probably could have been in contention if a few putts had dropped and a few bounces had gone his way (and I am talking about shots that landed in the "right" place on the green or fairway, not "lucky" bounces).

The greens were a nightmare - to the point where "good fortune" was more valuable than "skill". It was like putting on a Plinko board. You could see the ball bouncing two to three times on the way to the hole on many putts.

If the goal of the USGA is to have people shoot somewhere around par then they obviously succeeded - but I don't think the course set up necessarily confirmed or guaranteed that the "best" player would win because of the "luck" factor. Not trying to take anything away from Graeme McDowell - he gutted it out and deserved it - but the circus greens put the whole thing in question.

I absolutely believe that the best strategy on 17 was to put it in the bunker and try to get up and down. The 7 guys who hit the green probably landed in the rough and were fortunate enough to kick on.

I never realized how good the guys on Tour are until watching them live this week. They are literally landing the ball in a five foot square on approaches and 10 ft square off the tee most of the time - if you can pull that off and the ball kicks into the gunch, rolls off the green or whatever over and over then you would be frustrated as well.

The Pebble set up made for some entertainment on TV and in the stands, but as a player, how can you say that it is "fair" when "luck" matters so much?

Yes, this is the reason that a lot of US guys don't care so much about the Open Championship.

I also think the conditions were right up the alley of guys like McDowell and Havret because they see them more often on the European Tour and they know how to play through it. Cejka also had a good tournament.

If the greens were more true then I think the tournament would have been a success - they also needed to play 17 shorter.

[Garland Bayley]

If the TV announcer can correctly call your mistake before seeing the result, probably it was an inept effort. If you make one inept effort, it might be likely you will make more.

However, the most inept effort would be blaming everything and everyone but yourself. Jack loved to hear these kind of diatribes, because he knew the author of the diatribe would provide no challenge.

Ryan Moore, you disappoint me!

[Rick Shefchik]

Rob, I'm a big Ryan Moore fan and I know I'd have been tempted to say the same thing after seeing so many of my well-struck putts miss, and so many quality shots end up in terrible places, but "fair" has become a word that I try not to use anymore in a golf context. There really isn't a simpler way to put it than "everybody has to play the same course." A bowling alley is fair. A golf course is, by definition, acres of random bounces, divot holes, ill-timed gusts of wind, unpredictable sand, uneven grass height and varying turf firmness. You are often inches between safety and disaster.

I'm not suggesting that the USGA strive for utter randomness; I think they do try to reward good shots within their ability to do so, keeping in mind that the U.S. Open should challenge not only shotmaking and nerves, but patience in the face of adversity in a way that the typical PGA Tour stop does not. Ryan has won three USGA events, and I'm pretty sure he's got the inner makeup to win a U.S. Open someday, if he realizes that he has to change his mindset about the tournament. They're not going to change for him.

[Doug Siebert]

I had NO problem with #17.  Was it almost impossible to hit the green?  Sure.  Does this mean there was a problem with the setup on this hole?  No way, I don't believe there's any reason golfers should feel they have a 'right' to be able to put the ball on the green in regulation!  How is it any different from a long par 4 played into a strong wind where no one can reach the green in regulation?  If they played 17 to lay up or otherwise decide where the best miss for them was, many would have scored lower.  This hole is the opposite of #4, where the USGA moved tees up and turned it into a half par hole.  Unfortunately, while applauding the USGA for going the half par route when it means dropping the par by a half, few in GCA (or apparently on tour) believe its in opposite number where the par is increased by a half!  There was plenty of room to lay up and possibly trickle the ball onto the front right for a long putt or more likely chip to the back of the green, and for a guy competing in the US Open, I think laying up would have made it more of a par 3 1/4 than 3 1/2 anyway.  I think the USGA was testing the players' intelligence, and they all failed.

But we've had this argument in GCA before, and I always find to my chagrin I don't have very many people in my corner, believing that there's nothing wrong with a par 3 that has a green that can't be held under some conditions...

As for #14, I didn't have any problem with the approach shot.  There's nothing wrong with expecting a precision shot from a championship player with a wedge in his hands (and if he doesn't have a wedge in his hands, its his fault for whatever screwup earlier in the hole causes him to be playing a longer approach)  My issue was that the 4th shot after a miss was as difficult if not more difficult than the approach.  It would have been interesting to see what players would have done if the rules of golf allowed players to drop and hit their 4th from same spot as their third, rather than playing the short shot from around the greens.

[Sean_A]

I don't think there is any question that the greens were running too fast, but the firmness was excellent despite Pebble not being the poster boy for f&f because of its small greens.

In regards hitting a brown patch or a green patch - jeepers - folks must be kidding.  That is the rub of the green and folks have to take it for what it is.  When courses are brought back to a more primitive state than this is the sort of thing THAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED.  We may as well talk about leveling greens because its unfair if someone its a downslope and shoots thru while another ball landing a foot away doesn't.  Honestly, this has to be the most idiotic thing I have heard about the entire Open and it smacks of "USA traditional golf" - whatever else, make sure the course is so called fair.   

I am not a big fan of par 3s where there is no way to hit a green without bouncing thru or over rough or a bunker etc.  That is silly golf and it is played entirely with a putter.  This is why I am not a fan of par 3s surrounded by by sand on windy sites when the prevailing wind is at one's back. Usually, greens on this sort of hole are not built big enough to handle a good wind.   Was #17 really set up that way or was it merely very difficult target on the day?   

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

I also think the conditions were right up the alley of guys like McDowell and Havret because they see them more often on the European Tour and they know how to play through it. Cejka also had a good tournament.

This is a myth. 99 per cent of the time, the European Tour plays on modern, 'American-style' courses. Even when they do go somewhere older, it's generally a course that has been primped up to resemble a modern 'American-style' course (see Wentworth for details).

It's possible that _some_ of the Europeans are more attuned to those conditions because of the courses they grew up playing - GMac at Portrush, for example. But they sure don't learn those skills on tour.

[Scott Coan]

I don't think there is any question that the greens were running too fast, but the firmness was excellent despite Pebble not being the poster boy for f&f because of its small greens.

In regards hitting a brown patch or a green patch - jeepers - folks must be kidding.  That is the rub of the green and folks have to take it for what it is.  When courses are brought back to a more primitive state than this is the sort of thing THAT SHOULD BE EXPECTED.  We may as well talk about leveling greens because its unfair if someone its a downslope and shoots thru while another ball landing a foot away doesn't.  Honestly, this has to be the most idiotic thing I have heard about the entire Open and it smacks of "USA traditional golf" - whatever else, make sure the course is so called fair.    

I am not a big fan of par 3s where there is no way to hit a green without bouncing thru or over rough or a bunker etc.  That is silly golf and it is played entirely with a putter.  This is why I am not a fan of par 3s surrounded by by sand on windy sites when the prevailing wind is at one's back. Usually, greens on this sort of hole are not built big enough to handle a good wind.   Was #17 really set up that way or was it merely very difficult target on the day?  

Ciao

These guys are good enough to hit whatever slope they want to Sean.  EVERY green is graphed and they aim for spots because they know that they can predict within reason how the ball will react when it lands.  When a ball bounces 5 feet in the air from one spot and sits and spins 12 inches away from that very same spot it becomes a joke, which is what we all witnessed on Sunday.  Probably the most boring major in a decade.

Please tell me what the most spectacular shot you saw on Sunday, can you even identify a single one?  The best golfers on the planet gathered at one of the most spectacular golf courses in the world and we all got to watch approach shots being filtered down narrow cabbage-bordered pathways so they all could attempt to 2-putt from 40 feet.  WHOOPEE.

The #'s 1, 2, and 6 players in the world all in contention on a Sunday of a major championship and we got an absolute yawnfest.  All because Pebble's famously small greens were too fast, too firm, too surrounded by cabbage.  But the eventual survivor/winner came in at even par so it must be considered a success by the jokers in the USGA.

[Martin Toal]

Ryan Moore is entitled to his opinion, but I think it shows disrespect for Graeme and the other players who had better luck played better than him.

Maybe he should stay at home during The Open if he can't deal with the breaks.

[Gary Slatter]

I know I am biased - but I watched Ryan for all four of his rounds and he wasn't "inept" in the slightest. He was grinding and grinding for four days and went from T68 on Friday to T33 on Sunday.

Like other guys out there he probably could have been in contention if a few putts had dropped and a few bounces had gone his way (and I am talking about shots that landed in the "right" place on the green or fairway, not "lucky" bounces).

The greens were a nightmare - to the point where "good fortune" was more valuable than "skill". It was like putting on a Plinko board. You could see the ball bouncing two to three times on the way to the hole on many putts.

If the goal of the USGA is to have people shoot somewhere around par then they obviously succeeded - but I don't think the course set up necessarily confirmed or guaranteed that the "best" player would win because of the "luck" factor. Not trying to take anything away from Graeme McDowell - he gutted it out and deserved it - but the circus greens put the whole thing in question.

I absolutely believe that the best strategy on 17 was to put it in the bunker and try to get up and down. The 7 guys who hit the green probably landed in the rough and were fortunate enough to kick on.

I never realized how good the guys on Tour are until watching them live this week. They are literally landing the ball in a five foot square on approaches and 10 ft square off the tee most of the time - if you can pull that off and the ball kicks into the gunch, rolls off the green or whatever over and over then you would be frustrated as well.

The Pebble set up made for some entertainment on TV and in the stands, but as a player, how can you say that it is "fair" when "luck" matters so much?

Yes, this is the reason that a lot of US guys don't care so much about the Open Championship.

I also think the conditions were right up the alley of guys like McDowell and Havret because they see them more often on the European Tour and they know how to play through it. Cejka also had a good tournament.

If the greens were more true then I think the tournament would have been a success - they also needed to play 17 shorter.

any US player who says luck matters too much to play in the OPEN is a lightweight and probably makes too much loot picking his PGA tour events.

[Terry Lavin]

The greens were a nightmare - to the point where "good fortune" was more valuable than "skill". It was like putting on a Plinko board.

I'll hazard a guess and say that this is the first time that anybody has invoked a "The Price is Right" game in describing the playabliity of one of the greatest courses in the world.  Bob Barker, wherever you are, stop neutering a dog and give Rob Rigg a hand.  Great description!