Total fairway acreage?!

[Mark_Fine]

Kelly,
I was at a restoration conference in Williamsburg a few weeks ago and Tim Moraghan, Director, USGA Championship Agronomy, stated clearly - "The U.S. Open set up is a poor example for clubs to follow".  You might even see that quote in a column coming soon from Brad Klein  
Mark

[BCrosby]

Shivas -

Your extension of the cause and effect chain is spot on.

That daisy chain of horribles did not occur because of the mere existence of irrigation systems. They occurred because of the misuse of irrigation. As has been said several times here (I forget who said it first):

Irrigation should be used not to keep grass green, but only to keep it alive.

Mark -

I am happy to hear Mr. Morghan feels that way. First I've heard of it. Unfortunately, the USGA's reluctance to get that message out at any time over the last 60 years has left us with green chairmen at 99% of US courses believing quite the opposite.

The results have been very destructive for gca in the US over those years.

But, hey, better late than never.

Bob

[Mark_Fine]

Bob,
I agree with what you are saying to some extent about the USGA "not getting that word out", maybe they should.  But don't most people know that U.S. Open set ups are to test and torture the best players in the world?  They are not designed for the rest of us.  I don't like or necessarily agree with their position, but the U.S. Open is primarily an accuracy test.  I've been doing some research on "U.S. Open" course set ups and as far back as 65 years ago, the hosting courses were lengthened and tightened in preparation for the tournament.  The primary goal or test even back in the 30's (and probably even before that) was accuracy.  

Personally, I like the British Open philosophy best - throw up some gallery stands, open up the Championship tee boxes, and let the boys have a go!
Mark  

[BCrosby]

Mark -

Yes, the USGA has determined to test for a certain kind of golf. I believe that what they chose to test - accuracy - is a mistake. At least for a national championship.

What should be tested are the full range of skills of the best players in the world. US Open set-ups preclude the testing of all but a narrow range of skills. (Will enumerate that short list on request.)

Where does this USGA attitude come from? I believe the egos of the adminstrators are threatened by low scores. They view low rounds as ones they lost and the field won. They seem to view it as a contest between themselves and the players. I have never understood that psychology.  Not sure I want to.

I would hope that our national championship would be an occasion to test all golfing skills. It should be a celebration of shot-making. And that means people may go low. My related hope is that the USGA would someday be big enough to join in that celebration. I'm not holding my breath.  

Changing subjects, slightly:

USGA Open set-ups have had a direct and profound influence on how golf clubs in the US perceive what a good course is and how it should play. The USGA should have always understood that. Anyone with eyes to see has always understood that. Spend a few minutes in the Mens' Grill at the club of your choice. Those USGA attitudes are still there, as we speak.

Thus I find their recent acknowedgement that they might be troubled by this fact disingenuous in the extreme. Claude Raines comes to mind. "Rick, I am shocked, shocked...."

I can forgive most of the foregoing. What I have trouble forgiving is that these USGA-engendered attitudes ended up wrecking a lot of great old courses.  

Old courses designed by men who envisioned the game in a very different and - I believe - much better light.

It's a shame. A cryin' shame.

Bob