I hope the USGA watched that

[Ran Morrissett]

World top 50 venue matched by superlative course set-up, conditions were adjusted to handle potential weather events, rules questions handled quickly and efficiently, the course identified the best player as did the awards ceremony where the winner was even identified by his actual name.

Best yet, the number of times I heard the R & A mentioned was few and far between. It was man against course & nature, as it should be.

Honestly, one of the best events I have seen in a long time in that expectations were exceeded at every key level.

Hats off to all those involved.

Best,

[William_G]

exactly

every time the USGA comes to the US Open course, it becomes a man made "invention" which doesn't always work fairly and golf at every level should at least be fair and for me "fun"

[Wade Whitehead]

At the British Open, every sign reads "The Open."

At the US Open, every sign reads "USGA."

That pretty much tells the story.

WW

[BHoover]

I saw "R&A" logos as well.

But we know the USGA is not going to change its philosophy with respect to conducting the US Open.

[Peter Pallotta]

Three words: self fulfilling prophecy.  If you assume, a priori, that a classic course/design can still challenge (and identify) the best players in the world, it will probably end up doing just that; and any low winning score (in this case, 14 shots better than the 3rd place finisher) will reflect not the obselecence of the architecture but the extraordinarily great play of that year's champion golfer.

[David Lott]

I saw "R&A" logos as well.

But we know the USGA is not going to change its philosophy with respect to conducting the US Open.

Ditto "The Masters" and "PGA Championship"


What do they have in common? For one, huge moneymaker for the "owner" of the championship. Indeed, in each case, the predominant or sole source of income.

[Jerry Kluger]

That's how you grow the game - great venue and a great match of two players at a level that they will likely never repeat.  The challenge was the other competitor, the weather and a great course - no need for funky rulings or stupid commentary just a beautiful game. 

[BCowan]

Well the USGA got it right at Pinehurst!  Excluding the ruining of the 3rd hole, the set up was amazing.  It yielded one man taking apart a great course and Wee getting her first major.  A major with truly firm greens was amazing despite the brutal heat.

Ever since lefty win at Muirfield, I've noticed faster greens and more receptive greens at the open.  I've rather lost interest.  It seems respecting great shots is less valued then back and forth duos.  Though they had rain, the sand is suppose to be so quick at drying. No rain at Muirfield.  Watson/Cink was great however.

[Brent Carlson]

+1.  That was some of the most riveting golf I've ever seen.  Bravo to the R&A and congratulations to Mr. Stenson.

[David_Tepper]

Mickelson was asked to compare the setup of the two Opens at the press conference after the final round. He basically said the USGA was obsessed with "protecting par," while the R&A presented the course as it was intended to be and let the conditions and the skill of the players determine the scores. Naturally, he preferred the later to the former.   

[David_Tepper]

"Ever since lefty win at Muirfield, I've noticed faster greens and more receptive greens at the open.  I've rather lost interest.  It seems respecting great shots is less valued then back and forth duos.  Though they had rain, the sand is suppose to be so quick at drying. No rain at Muirfield.  Watson/Cink was great however."

Ben C. -

I think you may be confusing coincidence with causation. I seriously doubt the R&A has deliberately tried to present softer conditions at the Open over the past several years.

Yes, sand-based links courses do drain well, although some drain much better than others. But extended periods of rain can soften even the fastest draining links and that is what much of the UK has experienced two of the past three summers.

DT

[Peter Pallotta]

Mickelson was asked to compare the setup of the two Opens at the press conference after the final round. He basically said the USGA was obsessed with "protecting par," while the R&A presented the course as it was intended to be and let the conditions and the skill of the players determine the scores. Naturally, he preferred the later to the former.   

DT - earlier in the week he made a similar point,  ie 50-100 years ago par was a good score, but today's players are better than they were 100 years ago and so par is NOT a good score any more,  which means that courses have to be severely tricked up in order to keep scores that high

[Sean_A]

I rarely have an issue with the R&A set-up, unfortunately the one course where I do have serious issues about is TOC...it is a shadow of what it should be.  I didn't find Troon terribly riveting, it was too soft and slow for that, but the play of the two leaders was something else regardless of the course.  The best player won because he didn't flinch and was clutch.  It had nothing to do with Troon identifying a winner 


Ciao

[Steve Lapper]

World top 50 venue matched by superlative course set-up, conditions were adjusted to handle potential weather events, rules questions handled quickly and efficiently, the course identified the best player as did the awards ceremony where the winner was even identified by his actual name.

Best yet, the number of times I heard the R & A mentioned was few and far between. It was man against course & nature, as it should be.

Honestly, one of the best events I have seen in a long time in that expectations were exceeded at every key level.

Hats off to all those involved.

Best,

  Other than Troon belonging amongst the World's top 50, I mostly agree with you (rare indeed! )


  Unlike the top-heavy and incestuous USGA, the R & A has learned over time to let the canvas display the art and the golf make the story. Yesterday's Open was an epic match for the ages and like any timeless story, it was mostly void of distractions. The Royal & Ancient made sure to support it, not interfere with it, and avoid putting its ego on display.


  They stay behind the scenes and don't allow their member-officers excess time in front of the camera lights. Of course, the founders and keepers of our language don't tolerate even a single butchering of a name, let alone consecutive ones.


 While the R& A has certainly had its fair share of wayward issues in its past,  they no longer tolerate making such blatantly nepotistic appointments as nonchalantly and stupidly as the USGA's Nominating Committee regularly does. Governance matters and we should realize that the USGA's politics have ironically come to look like the backward and historic doppelgänger of the Order of the British Empire, merely substituting a few bluebloods for a single monarch.


 Yesterday's golf was riveting in so many ways and while the brilliant round by Stenson was undeniably worthy of a victory, there really wasn't a single loser throughout the event......okay, maybe Rory's 3-WD or Pieter's iron.

[Josh Stevens]

Perhaps it is because the R&A realises it has more in common with Augusta or the All England Lawn Tennis Club and Croquet Club, than the USGA.

It is not a governing body, and has no actual power  or authority other than by the influence it exerts from leading by example 

It is just a private club that puts on a little tournament every year that people seem to want to come to.

[Carl Rogers]

The contrast between the professionalism of the R & A and the amateurish "*#@&" of the USGA could not be more stark. Sadly, over a range of areas, USGA Management has demonstrated time and time again that they are not ready for Prime Time.

[Ryan Coles]

I think the Open presentation ceremony is the best in all of sport.

The USGA has really embarrassed itself with their last couple. 

I think the course was softer than anyone would like, but it's been wetter than anyone would like. The R&A have got it wrong a couple of times in the last 20 years, or at least they've not had oversight of a couple of greenkeepers but they still allow the conditions to dictate the winning score, rather than trying to impose a par score in flat calm, dry and sunny conditions which seems to be the aim of the USGA.

A final word on ticket prices, I think they should look closely at them. £80 for a day ticket before anything else is probably  on the high side, even if under 16's do get in for free. Make it £60 and I think they get more in, better atmosphere and the same financial result.

[Evan Fleisher]

At the British Open, every sign reads "The Open."

At the US Open, every sign reads "USGA."

That pretty much tells the story.

WW

+1


Well said!

[John Sabino]

Couldn't agree more. An argument for slower greens and lower rough. Let the best players hit their best shots and don't trick things up. No need for the ridiculous video debacles when you set a course up properly.

[David_Tepper]

You can read Mickelson's comments comparing the setups of the two Opens verbatim here:

http://www.geoffshackelford.com/homepage/2016/7/18/phil-on-the-difference-between-a-usga-and-ra-setup.html

[Connor Dougherty]

I don't necessarily have a problem with how each of the majors present themselves. There's nothing wrong with having one event a year which attempts to humble the worlds best.


The real problem is that the USGA's efforts to do so have helped entrain in the American psyche that a golf course has to be, first and foremost, difficult in order to be interesting. Meanwhile, so many great links courses in GB&I remain interesting because they feel the same way the R&A does about how a course should present itself.


Th PGA seems to do a similarly good job of presenting the course for its major, but unlike the R&A, it frequently selects golf courses which are subpar for a tournament of the PGA's caliber.

[Terry Lavin]

The USGA is obsessed with defending par at the US Open.  The R&A seems obsessed with tradition at The Open Championship.  They both use their events to make money and build up the brand, but the likelihood of a more enjoyable championship does not involve trying to torture the course to torture the players to come up with the "right" score.

[JJShanley]

The USGA is obsessed with defending par at the US Open.  The R&A seems obsessed with tradition.  They both use their events to make money and build up the brand, but the likelihood of a more enjoyable championship does not involve trying to torture the course to torture the players to come up with the "right" score.

The R&A, or perhaps their consultants, have ramped this up in recent year.  They had always used the expression Champion Golfer of the Year at the presentation, but that has become an expression throughout the week.  They also made a greater deal of Prestwick this championship than the two previous I recall at Troon ('97 and '04), whether in the broadcast or selling Prestwick items celebrating the first Open.  You can say the same for the yellow they use on the scoreboards and hole flags.


It wouldn't surprise me if they named the Gold Medal for Old/Young Tom Morris, as the USGA named their gold medal for JN.  Perhaps the name the Silver Medal for Bobby Jones.  That might get a touch twee though.  I think I heard David Duval say that all the past champions received replica Challenge Belts recently.


I have no problem with that, given that I study history, but I wanted to draw attention to the R&A's new tradition of celebrating their tradition more obviously.  I wish they had continued to use the Gill font, which I love, but such things happen in the name of progress.

[Niall C]

JJShanley


You're absolutely right about the R&A getting slicker with the branding and marketing. I strongly suspect that this is largely in response to the Masters which bang on about their "traditions". Ironically that might be another reason why the BBC were ditched. The BBC seemed more inclined to promote the Masters over the Open, or at least they seem to do from my perspective. The R&A have belatedly cranked it up.


Niall

[Adam Lawrence]

Niall, the BBC wasn't 'ditched' but essentially opted out of the process by not making a sensible bid for the rights. It was a conscious decision on the BBC's part to abandon the Open in the quest to save £££