Joint US Men's & Women's Opens

[Ben Hollerbach]

I've enjoyed watching the women take on Pebble Beach this week and Baltusrol last month, At times it seems the way the women play these great old venues is more fitting to the venue than how the men play them today.

At the same time, we have Wimbeldon going on, which like all the other tennis majors is a mixed event.

Which makes me ask why then today do we still have separate US Opens? The joint open that was played back in 2014 seemed to be a success, so why nearly a decade later has it not been replicated. I'd like to see the USGA make a strong effort to not only continue to bring the US Women's Open to strong championship sites, but share the US Open with the men.

If, going forward, the USGA decided all US Opens would be played jointly, as they were in 2014, Which upcoming Men's US Open venues would shine in the role, which venues would step away from hosting, and which new venues would become primed to take their spots?

[David_Tepper]

Ben -

I can't answer your questions, but it is worth mentioning that last year the British Senior Amateur Championships for both Men and Women were held concurrently (at the same time) for the first time. It was held at Royal Dornoch. Play was over the Championship and Struie courses for the first two rounds. The final 2 rounds were on the Championship course.

It looks like both events are being held together next week (10-13 July) at Woodhall Spa.   

DT

p.s. If I had to guess, it is possible that holding the 2 US Open's jointly is not as successful from a marketing/financial point as holding them separately.   
 

[Ronald Montesano]

Porter Cup tees off next Wednesday for the first time, with both divisions the same week. I like that they don't relegate the women to the end of the train.

Men's Wave
Women's Wave
Men's Wave

Previously, Women played in June and Men in late July. This should be pretty cool to watch.

As for courses that could/should host both, it depends on how foreward-thinking the USGA is. Example: two courses at Pinehurst for rounds one and two, then women play one for rounds three and four, while men play the other for rounds three and four. That way, there is integrity to the tournament (three of four rounds over the same course for both events) and you have the ability to watch both events.

Problem: would one event draw attention away from the other? I suspect that the answer is Yes.

[Jeff Schley]

I'd love to see such an event. Maybe play mixed the first two days, then the weekend group them by gender. As opposed to finding reasons why they can't, find circumstances whereby they can. It will look different I'm sure, but that would be a great event for sure.

I'd be up for a Champions major and LPGA major together as well if the mens major isn't possible.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I feel like the answer why they've never done a JOINT open is pretty obvious.

They're going to do another consecutive (not joint) U.S. Open duo at Pinehurst, soon, so… reasons why there's no joint one are very obvious. And there are still reasons why consecutive ones are a tough ask, too.

[Joe_Tucholski]

I feel like the answer why they've never done a JOINT open is pretty obvious.

They're going to do another consecutive (not joint) U.S. Open duo at Pinehurst, soon, so… reasons why there's no joint one are very obvious. And there are still reasons why consecutive ones are a tough ask, too.

Has to be incredibly tough on the course to host two events with incredibly high expectations with regards to conditioning back to back weeks.  At Pinehurst they definitely allowed the greens to soften a bit for the women but even still they weren't concerned if the greens were overstressed as they transitioned from bent greens to the ultradwarf bermuda immediately after the events.  Hopefully it goes as well in 2029.


Also not sure many member owned clubs want to be without their course for the extra week in a consecutive event.

[Ben Hollerbach]

While a concurrent event, similar to the Vic Open, might be the ideal model, concession such as reduced field size or multiple tournament courses would most likely be too much for the US Open. But a joint event, where dual tournaments are contested on the same course in back to back weeks, should be possible more frequently than every 15 years.


Being able to share infrastructure between the two events would sound like a benefit to the USGA, and having to close the course to the members for 5 weeks vs 4 sounds like a small price to host both the men and the women in the same year.


I can understand concerns about agronomy and setup. As long as the USGA selects venues that don’t need to be pushed to the edge to present a challenge, better regulate the equipment, and/or present the US Open as something other than the greatest test in golf, those concerns should be manageable.


I can understand some venues may decide the increased burden is too much, but the benefits of the US Open becoming a more unified Championship seems to be too great not to pursue.

[Pat Burke]

US Men’s Open is the cash cow with a huge field.
The rough and greens conditions are quite different.
I cannot see a concurrent Open working.


Maybe the USGa could contrive a men’s and women's  national championship, and set it up in the middle somehow. 


I can’t imagine the beating a course takes with back to backs  [size=78%] [/size]

[Thomas Dai]

Be interesting to know what the comparative infrastructure/event costs are for holding two big events on separate weeks in separate locations as against holding them at the same venue either at the same time or a week apart?
Atb

[Ben Hollerbach]

Pat,


Is there any reason LACC would not have been a suitable venue for the Women the week after the Men played it?

[Pat Burke]

Pat,


Is there any reason LACC would not have been a suitable venue for the Women the week after the Men played it?

I’d imagine the crossovers, gallery areas, driving range and a few divot farms in fairways would be an issue for the women.


Seems to me the National open for women shouldn’t be on a previously ripped up course

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

Given Riv is now set hold a open with very little extra space for tents and all the trappings...

What about a joint open at LACC (or any other 36+ hole facility), but use both courses in some round combination?

[Pat Burke]

Pat,

Given Riv is now set hold a open with very little extra space for tents and all the trappings...

What about a joint open at LACC (or any other 36+ hole facility), but use both courses in some round combination?

Seems for us opens, a lot of the second course (when there is one) is used for infrastructure.


But that would be Interesting. But if all the attention ends up on one over the other, it’s pretty risky

[Sean_A]

I think the Opens are too important to be hindered with the necessary infrastructure of hosting two at once. My preference would be much more in line with a two week golf festival more or less based on Wimbledon. Top golfers of all levels coming together for matchplay in various ways. I remain surprised that such an event hasn't been devised to date.

Ciao

[Mike_Clayton]

The Australian Open is now mixed and played on two courses. Last year was Victoria and Kingston Heath. This year is in Sydney at The Australian and The Lakes.
They play three rounds at one course and one at the other.
It's alternating groups and spectators seem to like it a lot more than the players.

[John Blain]

Porter Cup tees off next Wednesday for the first time, with both divisions the same week. I like that they don't relegate the women to the end of the train.

Men's Wave
Women's Wave
Men's Wave

Previously, Women played in June and Men in late July. This should be pretty cool to watch.

As for courses that could/should host both, it depends on how foreward-thinking the USGA is. Example: two courses at Pinehurst for rounds one and two, then women play one for rounds three and four, while men play the other for rounds three and four. That way, there is integrity to the tournament (three of four rounds over the same course for both events) and you have the ability to watch both events.

Problem: would one event draw attention away from the other? I suspect that the answer is Yes.

Ron-
It will be interesting to see how this turns out for the PC. In my opinion, the Men's division is in a downward spiral. The quality of the field is nowhere near what it used to be, the website is an absolute joke, and they are not a part of the Elite Amateur Series. It all adds up to an event that is no longer being supported by the best amateurs across the country. It didn't seem like it was that long ago that the PC was considered - along with Northeast Amateur - to be one of top 2 or 3 stroke play events in the country and was a "must play" for those playing the national amateur circuit.  Sadly, I think those days have passed.

[Phil Young]

One way to hold consecutive championships is to do it at the same club but at different courses. Bethpage Black for the men followed by Bethpage Red for the ladies. Both courses would get beaten up but one course would not be ravaged...

[Ben Hollerbach]

Happy to hear the USGA announced that Shinnecock Hills will host both the U.S. Open and the U.S. Women’s Open over consecutive weeks in 2036.

[Tim Martin]

Happy to hear the USGA announced that Shinnecock Hills will host both the U.S. Open and the U.S. Women’s Open over consecutive weeks in 2036.

+1-I didn’t see that coming but sounds terrific!

[Peter Sayegh]

Which competition will be played the first week?

[Ronald Montesano]

The Y chromosome has always played the week of Father's Day, and the X chromosome plays the following week.


I'll be freaking 70 years old!! Hope I'm still an Italian leprechaun with my lens.

[Phil Young]

Instead of punishing the women playing on a course that just had more divots left in the fairways than one can count, and if they truly want to do some spectacular, the same week the men play Bethpage Black (not scheduled at all), they should have the women play Bethpage Red.


Imagine Sunday afternoon the final two-some coming down to the 18th hole to decide the winner for each of them, barely a wedge shot apart!

[Wayne_Kozun]

I would think that private clubs would be less keen to hold joint Opens since it is even more disruptive to member play, both in terms of closing the course for a second week, and causing more damage on the course.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Instead of punishing the women playing on a course that just had more divots left in the fairways than one can count, and if they truly want to do some spectacular, the same week the men play Bethpage Black (not scheduled at all), they should have the women play Bethpage Red.


Imagine Sunday afternoon the final two-some coming down to the 18th hole to decide the winner for each of them, barely a wedge shot apart!

I don't recall, were divots an issue at Pinehurst? The women played No. 2 900 yards shorter than the men, I would anticipate the women were driving the ball beyond the driving zones for the men into clean grass.

The logistics around having to have double of everything on the same property to have 2 courses being used concurrently sounds so much greater than just playing them back to back on one course.

I would think that private clubs would be less keen to hold joint Opens since it is even more disruptive to member play, both in terms of closing the course for a second week, and causing more damage on the course.

Less keen than a public course? It would seem the lost tee sheet revenue & increased maintenance cost would hurt many public venues a lot more than a private one.

On the whole I'm excited the UGSA is joining the two US Opens once again, but I'm also a bit disappointed its not going to be for another 12 years.

[Dan_Callahan]

If playing at the same course, why on earth wouldn't you schedule the women to play first? Far less spectator traffic, and the greens don't have to be stressed to the point of near-fatality.