Peter Pittock, That's revisionist history about Shinny in '04
...
No, it's not. Stating the truth posted by Pete is revisionist, however, would be revisionist.
Shinnecock '04 was not a terribly difficult U.S. Open, based on recent history. Goosen won with -4, and one other player (Mickelson) was -2, with the rest of the field over par, led by Maggert at +1. U.S. Opens played immediately after that -- Pinehurst in '05, Winged Foot in '06, and Oakmont in '07 -- all had higher winning scores. Other than a few outlier performances (Kaymer last year with his 8-shot win, in what was really one of the all-time great U.S. Open performances; McIlroy in '11 due to a faulty set-up by Davis; Woods at Pebble in 2000), Goosen's winning total was not out of line with other U.S. Open winning totals of the past few decades (it matched exactly his winning total at Southern Hills a few years earlier, as well as Lucas Glover's winning total at BBlack in '09).
The last day at Shinnecock was difficult in the aggregate, but is the notion that the entire course "got away" from the USGA a fair one? I'm not sure; after all, both Mickelson and Goosen made one-putt birdies down the stretch on the back nine on Sunday, suggesting great play was rewarded. The between-groups watering of some greens, and Mickelson's 3-jack from 5 feet on the same hole (and his whining about it afterwards; note that I am a big fan of Lefty, and note also Goosen parred the hole) are what many remember about the course "condition" that day. But I'd argue it was a course that in some parts (not all -- some) was a brutally difficult test of golf -- as all U.S. Opens should be.
