Joint US Men's & Women's Opens

[Kalen Braley]

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.

Dan,

I was thinking same.

And if a few heavy rains came thru, can you imagine how trashed a clay-based course would get with mud as happened at Phoenix this year...

[Lou Cutolo]

Shinnecock 2036


https://golfweek.usatoday.com/lists/shinnecock-hills-back-to-back-us-opens-men-and-women-2036-usga/

[Peter Sayegh]

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.

There were "complaints" regarding the conditions that were not publicly voiced.
The admiration for the venue, championship, and atmosphere trumped those.

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.

Great point Dan.



P.S. I added my initial response tongue-in-cheek.
None of the original stories gave details on the scheduling of the event(s).
Lazy work on the reporting.

[Ben Hollerbach]

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.

There were "complaints" regarding the conditions that were not publicly voiced.
The admiration for the venue, championship, and atmosphere trumped those.

I remember some comments on the greens needing insane amounts of water on Sunday-Wednesday of the ladies week to keep them going, and many comments about the visuals around so much brown, but were there specific issues of the women having to frequently play out of the men's divots? Being 10 years ago, those type reactions are not front of mind.

[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

Yes.  Public courses get a huge bump in their aura if they host pro tournaments which allows them to increase green fees for every other day of the decade that they aren't hosting the US Open.  I will grant that hosting a US Womens Open right after a Mens Open probably doesn't do that much to increase this.
But there are some great private courses that have no interest in holding pro tournaments or majors.  They may host a Walker Cup or US Am, but don't want the hassle of a bigger event with the significant disruption that brings.  Or it may cause issues with their membership policy.

[Joe_Tucholski]

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.

Well, you'll be happy to learn it's only 5 years until another dual Open at Pinehurst (2029).


Surprised to see a place like Shinnecock willing to give up the course for another week.  Interesting to learn Shinnecock was the first US club to have women members and figure that's one of the contributing factors to have the women visit.

[Ben Hollerbach]

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.

Yes.  Public courses get a huge bump in their aura if they host pro tournaments which allows them to increase green fees for every other day of the decade that they aren't hosting the US Open.  I will grant that hosting a US Womens Open right after a Mens Open probably doesn't do that much to increase this.
But there are some great private courses that have no interest in holding pro tournaments or majors.  They may host a Walker Cup or US Am, but don't want the hassle of a bigger event with the significant disruption that brings.  Or it may cause issues with their membership policy.

I think I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that at a place like Pebble Beach they would capitalize more on a joint US Open over what they just did, A men's then women's US Open 5 years apart? Or are there public venues the USGA has expressed an interest in using for a men's US Open that have turned them down in the past, but would be more interested if they were to host a connect men's and women's US Open?

I could see a potential for venues who have hosted US Womens Opens in the past to want to host both, but I'm not sure if there are any that are also capable of hosting a Men's US Open who haven't already.


The list of great private clubs that don't want to hassle with hosting big events wouldn't seem to have any bearings here, because they already don't want to host big events.

[David Cronan]

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...

Phil,
I don't think we'll ever see this because the USGA and the networks don't want to be competing against each other with their two biggest events of the year going head to head, forcing viewers to make a choice as to which one to watch, as they would obviously be in the same time zone.

[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

Yes.  Public courses get a huge bump in their aura if they host pro tournaments which allows them to increase green fees for every other day of the decade that they aren't hosting the US Open.  I will grant that hosting a US Womens Open right after a Mens Open probably doesn't do that much to increase this.
But there are some great private courses that have no interest in holding pro tournaments or majors.  They may host a Walker Cup or US Am, but don't want the hassle of a bigger event with the significant disruption that brings.  Or it may cause issues with their membership policy.

I think I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that at a place like Pebble Beach they would capitalize more on a joint US Open over what they just did, A men's then women's US Open 5 years apart? Or are there public venues the USGA has expressed an interest in using for a men's US Open that have turned them down in the past, but would be more interested if they were to host a connect men's and women's US Open?

I could see a potential for venues who have hosted US Womens Opens in the past to want to host both, but I'm not sure if there are any that are also capable of hosting a Men's US Open who haven't already.


The list of great private clubs that don't want to hassle with hosting big events wouldn't seem to have any bearings here, because they already don't want to host big events.

I am saying that hosting a Mens US Open increases the value of the course in most instances, and especially for public courses.  I don't think it matters for Pebble Beach, but for courses like Chambers Bay or Torrey Pines hosting a US Open allows them to charge higher fees.  The same with Pinehurst when it began hosting the US Open on a regular basis in 1999.  GCA nerds knew about Pinehurst before that but it wasn't as well known throughout the golfing world.


The same applies to any public course that holds a PGA Tour event.  It also likely moves them up in the rankings - I would argue that was the case here in Canada where Glen Abbey was highly rated for years when it always held the Canadian Open, but it has now fallen way down in the ratings.


I am guessing that the USGA is probably encouraging courses to hold both events, or to also hold other USGA events if they want the Mens US Open.  Giving them the Mens US Open on the condition that they also host other, less glamorous events.

[Ben Hollerbach]

Wayne,
When you compare the bump in revenue at these pubic venues to that of the hundreds of millions spend and the years upon years of course construction endured by the members at places such as LACC, Brookline, Winged Foot, Oak Hill, Southern Hills, Baltusrol, Oakland Hills, etc... It would still seem the private clubs are willing/able to endure quite a bit more to continue to host majors.

The public courses don't have the luxury of spending money on speculation, nor always jumping through the hoops of hosting lesser events to get to the same status. Unless it's already been announced that your course is going to host a US Open, you need deep pockets to chase that potential revenue stream.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Agreed.  But there are some that seem uninterested - I am not sure if that is due to logistical reasons or just that they don't want the hassle.


Like San Francisco, Chicago Golf Club, etc.


I know here in Toronto that St Georges is not interested in holding another Canadian Open in the near future after holding the 2022 event - that's according to a close friend of mine who is a member.  But that isn't a major.

[Phil Burr]

I think the USGA gets it wrong by having the men play first.  First, isn’t it appropriate for a big event to build to its climax?  The biggest moment is for most fans the crowning of the men’s champion.  The women would benefit from better course conditions.  They don’t tear up the course with divots to the same extent as the men.  They don’t miss as many fairways, so the roughs won’t be as badly trampled by the time the men begin play.  They won’t draw the same crowds as the men, further minimizing the damage to the course and spectator areas that are out of play for the women.

[Steve Lapper]

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.

If for no other reason that the blue blazers wouldn't want the tour boys learning anymore on their way to a -14 score.


Also, heaven forbid the Women end up being more entertaining!

[jeffwarne]

I think the USGA gets it wrong by having the men play first.  First, isn’t it appropriate for a big event to build to its climax?  The biggest moment is for most fans the crowning of the men’s champion.  The women would benefit from better course conditions.  They don’t tear up the course with divots to the same extent as the men.  They don’t miss as many fairways, so the roughs won’t be as badly trampled by the time the men begin play.  They won’t draw the same crowds as the men, further minimizing the damage to the course and spectator areas that are out of play for the women.

Bingo

[Ben Hollerbach]

I don't disagree that the women should play first, but I have to imagine the reason they do not is due to tournament conditioning.

With a 3 day turnaround wouldn't it be easier to soften up the course from the men's level of firmness to the women's level of firmness vs. trying to firm up the course over the same 3 days?

At the same time, I'd image the rough would be lower for the women than the men. While they can cut the rough to shorten it between events, there is not much they can do to make it grow that quickly.

[jeffwarne]

I don't disagree that the women should play first, but I have to imagine the reason they do not is due to tournament conditioning.

With a 3 day turnaround wouldn't it be easier to soften up the course from the men's level of firmness to the women's level of firmness vs. trying to firm up the course over the same 3 days?
In my experience at US Opens I've attended in the northeast, the greens were quite soft in practice rounds, then progressively firmer by the weekend. So they would be used to going from less firm to firm.
It seems having it after the men that the women might have to face stressed, unhealthy turf(the mottled look we so often see Saturday/Sunday in US Opens) in high need of recovery time right about when they are expected to shine again for a week.

At the same time, I'd image the rough would be lower for the women than the men. While they can cut the rough to shorten it between events, there is not much they can do to make it grow that quickly.
Cutting thick rough often makes it worse at first. The ball settles to the bottom of long rough cut in the short run.
It would seem that if the women went first, the last cut of the rough could be the Sunday before they play, leading to prety low rough in their practice rounds, appropriate rough for their event and high rough for the men by gametime!

IMHO, the men stress the course far more than the women.
There must be another reason?
Would love to hear a Superintendant's take on my anecdotal observation.

[Ben Hollerbach]

It would seem that if the women went first, the last cut of the rough could be the Sunday before they play, leading to prety low rough in their practice rounds, appropriate rough for their event and high rough for the men by gametime!

Looking back at the tournament spec sheets, the men’s us open rough is graduated between ~3-5” while the women’s is between ~2-3”. If your target is to get ideal women’s height on Sunday of week 1 to ideal men’s height on Sunday of Week 2 that would require ~2” of growth over 7 days, or nearly 3/10” per day. Is that event doable under the best conditions?


I could see if the USGA stopped using their graduated rough that it could be done, but if they want the thick high rough for the men it seems like the rough would not grow fast enough.