Setup of US Open courses

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim Weiman;

I tend to agree that I like the differences between the majors, but I sense something more has happened to US Open setups in the past 10 years or so that I'm not sure I can put my finger on.

I can recall watching Open's like 71 at Merion, or 72 at Pebble Beach or Winged Foot or Oakmont years later, and it was thrilling....like watching a death march as player after player met disaster and fell from contention.  

For some reason, each hole seemed to have the potential for big numbers translating into competitive disaster.

If anything, it seems that the courses are now easier, and the rough shorter...exacting perhaps 1/3 shot penalties, and rarely a score higher than bogey, except perhaps on a windy day at Pebble.  

Am I the only one who thinks that the US Open setup has been slightly neutered from what they recall in the 70s and early 80s?

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

You have me excited.  Have I found a supporter to my proposal that the USGA just tell Oakmont's membership to screw any changes to the golf course and just get brutal with the setup?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim Weiman;

I say, grow the rough ankle deep, rake the bunkers with grooves, wax the greens (and fairways) to a bright sheen, and let them have at it.

Now...I understand everyone else's arguments to an extent.  Yes, strategy is somewhat negated as width is affected.  But, if you are going to make narrow fairways anyway (28 to 35 yards) then let's have a real penalty for missing them in the US Open.   None of this 4-iron or less, namsy-pamsy stuff.  

I'm talking the stuff I had trouble walking in at Oakmont in 83.  You could trip and break an ankle in there.  

Let Augusta be about strategy and putting prowess...let The Open be about battling the elements and the purity of the game on open links...let the PGA be about...well...whatever the PGA is about, but...

I say, let's continue to make the US Open a torture chamber...much more so than it has been in recent years!  

Does anyone remember the "Massacre at Winged Foot?"

Screw additional course changes is right, Tim!  Let's just set it up in a way that is brutally difficult and then can be returned to the members the way it was the following week.

[Dan Kelly]

Mike --

I'm with you all the way.

I want to see pain on those faces.

Pain, I tell you!

And I do think you're right: One of the potential glories of major-championship golf (standard-issue PGA Tour golf, too -- though sadly lacking most weeks) is the Potential for Disaster -- doubles and triples and Others! I, too, have a sense that the Disaster Potential at our Open has been reduced in recent years -- possibly, again, because they're hitting the ball so far that they don't NEED to hit the driver as often or as hard as they used to in order to reach positions from which they might be able to hit the greens, much less attack the pins.

Give us that Competition Ball! And rough as gnarly as Lee Janzen's hair! And greens that'll blind you in the rising sun!

One, serious question: I've followed a player throughout an entire Open only once: 1991, Hazeltine, Payne Stewart, all 90 holes. And I KNOW why he won that Open, and it wasn't because he hit the ball the best. He won that Open because he must have made 25 putts of 7 to 15 feet that week. It was just incredible.

The setup was beyond penal that week. Having watched three days' of practice rounds, I honestly don't think anyone would have broken 300 if it hadn't rained quite a bit on Wednesday night and Thursday of tournament week.

It was the guy who made the most Recovery Putts that week who won the championship. Is that always the way it is, when the course is Beyond Penal? And if so: Is that a good thing? (Oops. Two questions -- both serious.)

[Stan Dodd]

Paul,
Who says that it matters if the TV people don't like the format . Shouldn't the PGA focus on just identifying the best champion.

[Stan Dodd]

Paul,
Who says that it matters if the TV people don't like the format . Shouldn't the PGA focus on just identifying the best champion.

[David_Elvins]

Funny, but I agree with what a few people have said about how there are fewer big numbers at the US Open.  Lots of bogeys but not enough doubles and triples.  I never watched the Opens of the 70's  and early 80's but I was going to suggest that the reason for this was the complete oposite.  The coursess are too penal )rather than not pena enough).  Most of the time, big scores come in when players try and bite off more than they can chew.  eg going for a tight flag position despite having a bad lie in the rough.  THe problem with the US Open is that there is no temptation.  If you hit it in the rough then you wedge out to 100 yards from the green and hit that full wedge in.  There is no temptation to try the "impossible shot".  Alot of the difficult pin positions also lack temptation.  For example the 17th at Olympic on Day 4.  The hardest hole on the course but very few big numbers.  No one could get within 60 feet on the approach shot so no one tried.

In summary -It is just my opinion but the holes where people score big numbers are also the holes which offer a chance of birdie. (think amen corner).

[Tim_Weiman]

David Elvins:

When should I be thinking about Amen Corner?  Isn't once a year for the Masters enough?

And regarding your concern about temptation, I love the fact that at US Opens players have to think very carefully about which club to hit from the tee (on par 4/5s).  Most know that a totally conservative approach will probably leave them with longer approach shots than they can handle, but they also know the penalty for pulling out a driver and missing the fairway.

Severe USGA setups get inside the players head, undermine their confidence and lead to mistakes.  Managing that kind of pressure makes one a "worthy champion", in my opinion.

Why would we ever went to eliminate this kind of test for one - I repeat, just one -of golf's major championships?

[David_Elvins]

Tim,

"Why would we ever went to eliminate this kind of test for one - I repeat, just one -of golf's major championships? "

You're right, one major set up like this is nothing terrible.   Lets compromise and make it the USPGA.  A forth rate setup, for a forth rate champion at a forth rate major!

I get what you are saying and mostly agree. I don't actually see anything wrong with the US Open set up other than:

1/it is widely regarded in America as the best major -the most important to win -yet there are so many duds on the leaderboard.

2/ They play it on the great old courses yet take away the design elements that made them famous.

[Dan Kelly]

David Elvins --

Go ahead. Do your statistical analysis! Show us all the duds!

[David_Elvins]

Dan,

After all that talk... I don't think I can do it.  Can't find anywhere with an archive of Rankings.  I will just have to start form now and give you the results in ten years.

Still, I am now a GCA full member, so all those posts weren't a complete waste.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Dave Elvins,

You indicated that you objected to the location and depth of the rough at USOPEN courses.

You also indicated that you couldn't or wouldn't provide specific examples, hence it is difficult to assess the facts, choose a side and embark on a healthy debate, but.....

At # 11 at Augusta, I believe the right side of the fairway and rough are the prefered sides for more favorable angles of attack into the green, not the left side as you had mentioned.
With any back or left side pin position, the left side of the fairway and rough almost mandate a bailout to the right, rather than risk flirting with the water on the left of the green.  Perhaps you meant the right rather than the left side was the prefered driving area.

With respect to USOPEN fairway widths, I had never heard of
20 yard widths, but wouldn't be against them, depending on the length and configuration of the particular hole.
I believe the distance between the right side fairway bunker and the left side rough on the first hole at NGLA is about that width or possibly narrower, so there can be merit to tightened fairways for the BEST GOLFERS IN THE WORLD.

When the best players in the world are driving the greens that the architects intended players to hit 8-irons, and the best players in the world are hitting driver, 6-iron into par 5's that were intended as genuine three shotters, something must be done to bring the original intent back into play.
Lengthening holes can be an acceptable method, but so can pinching rough, and letting it grow such that an errant shot is penalized to the degree it is errant. (the more off line, the deeper the rough)

Placing a premium on driving accuracy is a test that world class players should face, under pressure, when competing for the National Championship.

When the original architects crafted their classic golf courses, many of the tactical challenges they created for shots into the green required three woods or 3-irons or 4-irons.  Today,
the best players in the world are hitting 9-irons or wedges into those same holes.  I think you would agree that the flight characteristics and flight and run pattern of a 3-wood, or 3-iron and 4-iron differ dramatically from those of 9-irons and wedges.  Only a few short years ago, Greg Norman, one of the longest and straightest drivers of his time, hit a 4-iron into the 18th hole at Augusta.  Last year, players were hitting sand wedges.    And......... if you've ever seen or played the 18th hole at Augusta, you realize how incredible that is.

When Tiger Woods won his first Masters, he never hit more than a 7-iron into any par 4.  Now ask yourself, how successful will one be in reaching the appropriate location on the green if they are hitting long or medium irons into those greens, and how will they fare against someone else hitting wedges, 9, 8 and 7-irons ?
You'll see a lot more chipping and pitching from the former.

The improvement in the talent of the touring pro, combined with the improvements in the equipment and the ball, provide for a vastly different competitive world then existed 20-30-40 and 50 short years ago.

So while I understand that you object to the USOPEN set-up, you have offered no specific references relating to USOPEN holes and courses, and have proposed no alternative solution for the USGA to seperate and identify the greatest players the game has ever seen.

I think it's okay to offer constructive criticism, but in the USGA's defense, I think you need to present specific facts and circumstances to advance your cause with credibility.

But, that's just my opinion.

[APBernstein]

I had this discussion last week about how rough had become one of the only logical band-aids left to keep golf (and especially major golf) respectable.  In a perfect world, we would all love to see the Pinehurst #2 setup every year.  But that is simply not going to happen.

I am picking the lesser of two evils here.  Would I rather see the Open played at Torrey Pines and with that, a flood of new, long, and boring courses?  Or would I rather see the Open staged at places like Olympic and Shinnecock but let the rough grow so scores stay down.

We can debate all we want about a competition ball or a rollback of the entire golf ball industry, but until that happens, we need to "fix" what is in place right NOW.  I say go to Shinnecock and Pinehurst, etc.  If that means tall rough, so be it.

[ChipOat]

In the words of former USGA President Sandy Tatum following criticism of Winged Foot's difficulty in 1974: "We are not trying to intimidate the best golfers in the world - we are trying to identify them".

[Chris Kane]

Despite what I said about the US Open, I still believe that there is a place for a major tournament with this style of setup.

The US Open is just one of the four majors, and therefore it fits in nicely with the other three, which would, in an ideal world, profess different ideologies on course setup.

That's why I support the concept mentioned earlier where the US Open is a penal test, the British Open stays as it is, Augusta is Augusta and the PGA is used to highlight (good) modern architecture.  That might be a way for the PGA to distinguish itself a little better - although it will never shake off its tag as the fourth-most prestigious tournament of the year.

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

I totally agree with what you are saying about maintaining the integrity of the approach shot.  Playing a long iron into a green that was designed to have a long iron hit into it.  The best way to maintain this shot integrity is to lengthen the course.  I am therefor somewhat suprised to hear so many people on this site object to course lengthening.  But of course, unlike the 18th at Augusta that you mentioned, not all holes can be lengthened.  And growing rough to shorten he tee shot does lengthen the approach shot.  I agree with you that this is a valid way of maintaining the designed approach shot when playing the older courses.  It is a little dissapointing though, that on a lot of US Open courses, a long shot is required into a Par 4 but the green is surrounded by rough, taking away the option of a run up shot.

I am starting to see where you, Dan, Mike et al. are coming from.  I think I am a bit more open minded now.  

[Tim_Weiman]

David Elvins:

I'm opposed to lengthening courses because I believe the pursuit of absolute length makes no sense.  It is just a big waste of money.

When it comes to length, what matters is relative length: the ability of one player to hit the ball further than another or to clear a hazard or reach a par 5 when another player can't.

By contrast, all this talk about the "longest ball" is really silly.  Why should we continue lengthening courses just to accomodate a very small minority exceptionally skilled at applying the latest technology?

Isn't it far better to just make the setup even more penal by growing rough once every ten years and otherwise leaving the classic courses alone?

[Dan Kelly]

Two words: Competition Ball.

[JakaB]

Just so someone tuning into this site won't think everyone on this site loves the competetion ball....let me say two words...Jesse Ventura.   I realize this is a juvinile argument but an entire state had a fair election and voted in a bad idea...lets not get pushed into a bad solution by a knee jerk reaction to a fluid situation.

[Bill_Spellman]

David - Good topic- Makes you think about previous eveents, and results.

    A few years ago I was playing in the Virginia State Open and the bunkers had alot of sand added 4 months prior to the event. We experienced a drought and the sand never settled.
There were three PGA tour players entered and all three said the same thing in print. They stated that the skill level was removed on bunker shots because every shot buried and it made everyone the same. All you wanted to do was dig it out into play in one shot.

      The same thing applies most of the time at the U.S. Open with "6" rough, which we realize is measured on Monday of the event, or earlier. By the 4th round it is much higher. Hack it out and keep going. No skill involved, just brute strength.

    Look at the set up for Pinehurst, and look at the top ten finishers. Not much doubt about producing an "Augusta Like" finish.

      I also agree that the U.S.G.A. could back off on the rough but create firm, fast conditions with chipping areas and produce a worthy champion and a marketable event. Augusta and the British Open (exception Carnoustie) have for the most part provided worthy champions without "prepping" the course to extremes. As I see it IMHO most British Open coures and most courses in the British Isles are maintained in a tournament state anyway ie: Hard And Fast. That seems to create good events and good champions.

      Shots played from light rough into firm greens require more skill and thought than a shot from knee high weeds. One starts to think about alternatives to missing the green where is the best place to recover from, the bunker or over or short or left, etc?

      

  

[Dan Kelly]

JakaB --

Just in case someone tunes in to this site and thinks a person who likes a Competition Ball must have voted for Jesse Ventura:

I didn't. And never will.

There is absolutely nothing "knee-jerk" about my support for a Competition Ball.

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

The Opens I've been to didn't have 6 inch rough on Monday, with it being much higher by the final round. On the other hand, I've even seen the rough trimmed on the eve of the tournament. There have been exceptions to this, of course, such as the Hogan-Fleck Open at Olympic, and Winged Foot in '74.

[Tim_Weiman]

Bill Spellman:

I'm very surprised to hear anyone suggest there is no skill involved in hitting fairways and greens.

What exactly is wrong with having one of the four major championships emphasize this skill?  Don't the Masters and the British Open adequately test other skills?  Why do you want the major championships to present similiar tests?

[Bill_Spellman]

Tim-          I certainly did not mean to imply that hitting greens and fairways in a U.S. Open setup was not an art. Just the opposite. What I think I wrote was that hitting a ball from deep rough is not an art that better players posess over lesser players.

      An examination of the quality of the site versus the set up can create exciting events. Again I look at Pinehurst's set up. I felt that the rough being lighter, and I realize that it was Bermuda grass, lent itself to teasing and allowing the players opportunites to recover from mis-hit tee shots. The winning score was still -1 if memory serves.

Chip - With an individuals game naturally experiencing highs and lows it isn't always possible to identify the best player in any given week. Was Larry Nelson a better player than Tom Watson at Oakmont? yes. That week he was. Overall he was not. Was Olin Dutra a better player than Snead or Hagen or Sarazen. That week he was. Why? Perhaps other players games were not on an upswing while his was. By the way you will hear from me this week.

      Again I go back to my question: Does it take more skill to hit a shot from light to medium rough or does it take more skill to hack the ball out of deep, knee high rough.

      And yes the primary rough I have seen has been at least 6" early in the week at three Open sites.

     Chip - how high was the rough at Merion 5 days AFTER the '71 Open. I'll never forget.
          

[Tim_Weiman]

Bill Spellman:

You suggest that there is more skill involved hitting out of light to medium rough than "hacking out" of deep rough.

That is exactly the kind of thinking that has brought us rough at Augusta and the debacle at Carnoustie.

Don't even go there.  Stop trying to impose a single standard for the setups of golf's major championships.