golfrewind.com

I'll start off by saying that I like to see the pros struggle for par, particuarily for the Open. But to take the course over the edge and putting hole locations (#10 for example) that God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost couldn't hit to is a disgrace. Goosen is a worthy champion, no problem with his outstanding play. But the course was not set up the same for every player. The first groups off were treated like guinea pigs by not watering #7 until after they played; the USGA saw that the green was still not fair, so after the fact, they decided to water. These guys were never going to come close to winning, but they still are playing for some pretty substantial money and didn't play the same course. Shinecock didn't need this to prove it's character. Normally I don't side with the players' whining, but this type of course setup is way over the line. Go to espn.com for some good quotes of the players. I wouldn't be surprised that the USGA will in the future put hole locations in the hazards and tell the players that since everyone has to play the same hole, it must be fair. There is something terribly wrong when the best shot to make a par on a par 3 is by hitting in the bunker (#7). By tricking up the course, they minimize to showcase the talents of the best players on the planet and make them look like a 22 handicap weekend hacker. For those that like seeing the pros struggle to break 80, keep in mind that you would be furious if you played a course setup that, with the talent that most of us have, would be lucky to break 120. Add in the fact that you would be competing for alot of money and tell me you wouldn't complain too. The PGA does a much better job in it's setup of it's championship. Too bad the PGA Championship is considered by most as the redheaded stepchild of the Majors. In fact, the US Open is now the worst of the majors by taking GREAT courses and in essence, putting windmills on them. Last year the Supt. of Olympia Fields was fired probably because the Open wasn't "hard" enough and the members were embarressed that someone could tie an Open record on their course. Truth is the only people that should be fired is the USGA Tournament setup committee. The only saving grace this year is that they got a great champion and runnerup. That's still no excuse by making a mockery of the greatest game. There, I'm done, sorry for the ranting!

I see your point, but didn't Goosen and Michelson show that the course could be played? Yes, the set-up was extremely difficult, and the greens were almost unfair, but those two played the course they were faced with, and played it well. Could the average golfer play that course? No way, but these are the best players in the world, not the average golfer. I don't like to see pros make double bogies any more than I like to see birdies on every hole but this was fascinating to watch. For the first time in a long time, I saw situations where pros were not guaranteed par when they stepped on the tee box. It's US Open golf and all the players know going in that the USGA is going to challenge every part of their game. Some of these challenges are going to be border line, but nothing will be easy. That's why it's the US Open. Props to Michelson for his stellar play and congratulations to Goosen for winning while others were whining. Now they can all move on to the next tour stop where -20 under par might have them in the hunt! How's that for a rant?

------
Not a bad rant leaguegolf! I just think that any hole (in particular #7) that rewards hitting into a bunker as opposed to a well hit shot to a green is not how to seperate a champion from the field. Somebody had to win no matter what the setup. I don't see the point of letting the course go 75% "dead" is the way to determine a champion. Number 10 played to an average over 5 shots (a par 4) on Sun. and most shots I saw were from the fairway less than 80 yards from the green - nobody could hold that green - it's a tough hole anyways and it's not necessary to allow the turf to become so stressed that the hole for all practical purposes it became a 412 yard par 5 - that by definition is tricking up the course and was not the way that hole was designed to play. Let's put some giraffes with some other zoo animals, throw in a windmill, hit fairway shots from asphalt, putt on brown colored astroturf , play on some dog track, and call it the US Open. The final results do not justify taking one of the classic courses in the world and forcing it to play completely different than what the design features are. The Masters also had a great champion with a compelling story with the top players and yet the course set up was to let the players compete on equal terms (not changing the conditions during the tournament from human input) and didn't let the course die in the process. Goosen, the way he putted, probably would have won even if they had watered the course the way it should have been, but the results don't justify the means imho. And according to Jerry Kelly the USGA lied about "accidently" rolling #7 - Kelly says the Supt was told to roll the green, but he (the supt) was guoted as saying he's "not going to get in the middle of it" (Watch - the supt will be fired for the USGA's eff up, just like last year.) I believe Kelly and the Supt - the USGA lied and tricked up a great course just to make par the holy grail. I say let the course be played for the way it was designed and reward good shots. This didn't happen regardless of who won. Congrats for Retief and Phil - they did put on a good show, but I enjoy the course as much as the play and the USGA let the course go to ****.

[Props to Michelson for his stellar play and congratulations to Goosen for winning while others were whining.
----
One last point (rant?). Phil probably will not whine in public and it's not Retief's nature to complain openly, but trust me, behind the scenes they very well could be speaking to tournament officials about the set up. I've met with the PGA Tour's director of setting up courses for all the tournaments you see on TV, and I know this will shock you :), but what you hear in public and what is communicated to the officials can be two totally different things.

Is this classic course designed to be played with today's equipment? I don't believe 470 yard par fours being played 3 wood-nine iron is what the designer had in mind. Other than by making the greens extremely hard and fast how could the course have been protected from today's bombers? VJ admitted, on Saturday, the course set up allowed him to bomb it in the rough off the tee and still be able to reach, and hold, the greens. A couple of holes seemed "over the top" (#7 and #10 specifically) but other than those two holes I saw good shots be rewarded with pars and birdies. What would you do to provide a stern, fair, US Open challenge to today's players on classic old courses? The USGA and Shinnecock Hills can't fire you for speaking out can they?

No the USGA can't fire me! Being a anonymous poster has it's advantages! I do think they could have made the primary rough a little tougher - that would discourage the just bombing away mentality. You have a good point about the distances these guys can hit it now and making classic courses obsolete. Part of it is technology, but not enough credit is given to the players in how they improved their fitness and strength (excluding Tim Herron and John Daly!). I guess as a Supt, I hate seeing half-dead turf and don't see this as a necessary method to determine the "true" winner. I still think the USGA goes WAY out of their way to uphold "par"; they should maintain the course to something above dead and not have "accidents". Greens can be firm and still living, they don't have to be stimping 30 downhill like Phil had on 7 yesterday, and fairways don't have to be dead to make it "championship" quality. I agree few architects had in mind that a 470 yd hole be played in a 3 metal - 9 iron, but allowing the course to go in the ****** can't be the fix. I did like the chipping areas - it had the feeling of Pinehurst. Speaking of which, that was an Open where the course was maintained completely differently and par was a great score.
The biggest problem this week is that the wind never blew to the extent that the USGA wanted and they opted to let the course go to **** in order to preserve par. That's what gets me - just let the course play the way it is without letting it go half dead and if the guys shot 5 to 10 under, then so be it. If the wind did blow today, the course would have been completely unplayable - you wouldn't have been able to mark your ball on the green. So with relatively benign winds, they purposely tricked up the course and that's not golf the way it should be.

I definitely the USGA may have tried way too hard to make this course difficult. I'm sure if they decided to water #7 the night before, it would have still played hard. Someone who hits the green should always have a better chance of making par than someone who hits into a bunker, IMO. With that said, I'll have to admit I found it a little entertaining watching the players struggle but I do think it's a shame that this Open may be remembered for its "unfair" setup down the line. It's definitely something the Open could have done without.

Nearly every post-round interview I read on the US Open website had a comment about how ridiculous the greens were, even though the criticism was more muted than one would expect.

I've played courses where a "touched" putt above the hole rolled completely off the green, and it's not a good feeling. Yes, I stupidly put my ball above the hole, and yes, I missed the 3-foot birdie putt; but to have the ball roll completely off the green and roll 30 feet down the fairway? After a little pitch ended up below the hole and rolled back down between my feet and another pitch ended up above the hole again...well, the 8 I finally took on the hole really made me angry. I can't imagine playing an entire round with greens and pin locations like that. That elevated green was at least sloped toward the front. Many of the greens at Shinnecock were sloped from side to side and from front to back, throwing shots over the green repeatedly. I really got bored watching the same thing happen to shot after shot.

The USGA and Shinnecock should be embarrased over the condition of the course. Of course, the USGA probably had rull reign over all course maintenance for the last several months. Yes, the Open should be on of the two toughest competitions any golfer will face during the year (to me, the British is tougher - at least there, you could have temps hovering around 50 degrees with horizontal rain and the incredible rough conditions).

Watching the players have to play a 12 footer with an 8 foot break and bring the ball around the cup 270 degrees was a little too much.

[quote=drstroud]Yes, the Open should be on of the two toughest competitions any golfer will face during the year (to me, the British is tougher - at least there, you could have temps hovering around 50 degrees with horizontal rain and the incredible rough conditions).

=====
The difference between the US Open and British Open is that IF the conditions are calm at the British, The Royal and Ancient won't trick up the course i.e. roll greens to stimp to infinity, change par 5's to 4's etc. The only exception I can think of is Carnoustie - and that was still more playable than the USGA let Shinecock Hills become. Usually at the British if the winning score is well under par, then so be it.

Good point. And that is the difference between the USGA and the R/A. Who better represents the spirit of golf?

R&A allows nature to dictate course conditions. USGA takes matters into its own hands - to an extreme.

I didn't find it fair that on the final day of the US Open, less than 3% of 70 of the world's best golfers could not better par, while 25% of them couldn't even break 80.

One reason I enjoy the British Open over the US Open.

Maybe I should clarify my position regarding the USGA. They do many great things for golf, contribute to the spirit of the game and, from my standpoint, provide a very good agronomic research service. But to most of the golfing public the USGA IS the US Open. I went the usopen.com and they had an interview with the tournament director - his excuses for the setup were less than stellar. That part is disappointing. Despite the many fine services they do, they consistently fall short in the Open setup - which also is their most public venture. Few outside of the golfing business see all the things they do - you would think that they would get the big event right. I have listened to sports radio today and nobody thought this was the right way to conduct the championship. If the general public can see the obvious - why not water the greens Sat nite if you knew the weather had a high probability that it would dry the course on Sun, why not mow the toughest greens just once instead of double cutting them, why not mow #7 at a slightly different height to adjust for the difficultly, etc. I was impressed with some of the comments I heard. If these laymen can come up with these ideas that would have worked, then you would think that the tournament officials would. Fair or not, the USGA is judged by the golfing public in how they conduct the US Open. If this were a first, I would be easier on them, but it's not.

For the record, I have had to coordinate with the USGA on other tournaments ( a couple US Publinks qualifiers) and they let me set the course up any way I wanted. No, it's not the Open, but I really believe they should allow more input from the person who knows the course the best and how it should play for a tournament. Most supts know the game - from the rules, to playability and how those things effect tournament prep- very well. I don't know from a first hand experience, but my impression is, right or wrong, is that they tell the supt to step aside and follow their orders. That's what gets me going on my rants!!

GenErr,

As I recall...last year's British Open was ridiculed because the best players in the world could not keep their tee shots in the fairway. The bounces in the fairway are what gave us a fluke Open Champion in Ben Curtis. What's the difference between British Open fairways that won't contain a well struck tee shot and US Open greens that won't hold a well stuck approach shot?

That's a good point leaguegolf. Not much difference on the surface. But usually the greens at the British are not allowed to fry to near death and stimp over 12. If given a choice I think most pros would say let the fairways be whatever if they have half a chance of holding the green with a well hit shot from the rough, even if it means running the ball up to the green. My biggest complaint of the US Open were about the greens. As far as fluke winners, you could include Shaun Micheel at the PGA last year and nobody complained about the conditions of that course. Nicklaus was so impressed with the conditions that he hired the Supt of Oak Hill to be the Supt at Muirfield Village this year. (side note, the guy's dad was the supt at Augusta). I guess my point is that you can have "fluke" winners regardless of the conditions. And I would argue, in a good sense - not trying to start a street fight!- that fluke is hard to define in golf. Anyone who has their card can flat out play - the talent difference between the #1 player and the #100 is probably something like 3 strokes a round - I am not taking the time to verify this, but I bet it ain't much. More than likely, those 3 or so shots mostly revolve around the short game. Every tour player can basically bomb it when they want to and it all comes down to chipping and putting. Tiger Woods would not be the number 1 player now if he did not have an unbelievable short game. Fact is that if he didn't have that talent around the greens this week, he would have missed the cut by 5 or 6 strokes. Time will tell about Curtis and Micheel - both seem like good guys and I actually enjoyed watching them at the British and PGA last year.