golfrewind.com

We all saw conditions and course set-up that would've completely discouraged most of us. What do you think about how the best players in the world handled Shinnecock? Personally, I enjoyed watching the final 3-4 groups play what was described as the "hardest course on the planet." It's not something I want to see every week, but I saw a lot of creativity and clutch shot making along side the "train wrecks." What's your opinion?

I think they were so ****** the rough wasnt punishing the first 2 days of play that in order to save face they made the greens like cement. I've played there twice before, and I must say that the greens were absolutely perfect, but hardly fast at all! You could see the burn marks on the greens due to lack of grass! When I was there they were a flawless shade of green. If everyone finished under par and the cut was at even, Johnny Miller would have started a pissing contest like no other. They did what they had to do to make it as challenging as possible, and I think it was stupid. I bet Dave Pelz stock rose this week though! Now every idiot and their brother will think they can make 12 one-putts.

Anthony
Buffalo NY

All the players had to play the same course.... Even though one or two holes were unfair...they were unfair for all the players.

All you have to do is look at the final round scores to see how the "best players in the world handled Shinnecock"! They didn't do very well. It's a real tribute to the ball-striking ability, game plan, and nerves of those few players who shot around par on Sunday. Conditions verged on and sometimes reached the ridiculous out there. I'm sure that most of us would have found that course completely unplayable. By the way, I'm sure that the membership of Shinnecock is going to be sick when they see the effects of this tournament on their course. Without favorable weather, they will be looking at some pretty ugly conditions for quite a while.

To answer the original question "Was the US Open a fair test of golf?" I would have to answer no.

But, it is the US Open, and these are the best players in the world. The fact that 25% of the field couldn't break 80 on the final day, I think, answers the "fairness" question.

The best golfer on Sunday won. He one-putted 11 rock-hard greens to do it. Congratulations to Goosen.

I can't see what all the fuss is about. Golf is upposed to be like life (didn't someone once say so?) you gotta take the easy/good with the tough/bad, pros included. I'm sure we have all played on similar conditions and courses ( I can think of many public courses just like that) so why shouldn't the pros. IMO it is an excellent guide to many of the circumstances I find myself in and have to manufacture a shot to get out. Its nice to know that they can make similar bloopers (altho' not quite so many) as I. I think one can learn a lot more from this than watching plays on manicured, pristine courses.

Not so sure it was fair due to the winner having to one-putt so many greens just to stay around par and hold on for the win. If the greens were slightly less severe, I would say yes it was fair, but I think it was a bit extreme. However, I do like that the pros had to think and get creative with their shotmaking instead of just bombing drives and hitting high short irons into soft greens (by their standards).

It seems no one wants to clarify "fair". The course was certainly "fair" because all golfers had to play the same fairways and greens. All golfers were treated to the exact same venue. So, it was "fair" from that standpoint. The unfairness that crept in has become part of the U. S. Open. The Open used to be one of the toughest venues in golf. The Open saw courses set up much differently than the long, wide, spacious fairways and the receptive greens that were quickly becoming common place for PGA tourney golf. But, the crowds and the television audience enjoyed seeing birdies and eagles.

The Open suffered from quite a bit of negative feedback from sponsors and TV network personnel due to who we were seeing in the final foursomes on the weekend. Who was Janzen, Goosen ?????? We saw a far different leaderboard with the Open than we saw on most PGA weekends. So, the USGA finally caved and "eased up" on the degree of difficulty. Pebble Beach saw Tiger win by 10 strokes. That's what sponsors and the TV audience wanted, but it wasn't what tradition had dictated as the U. S. Open.

The past couple of years, this year included, we've seen a "blending" of sorts. The first two days are really laid back in degree of difficulty. This shorter rough, slower greens, insures that the big names will make it to the weekend. This gives the TV audience the Tiger, Els, Phil pairings they want to see. However, we do now see the weekend... after we have "captured" the marquee names... back to traditional Open format. Therein lies the "unfairness".

Did you see the looks on the faces of many of the players on Sunday. Fred Funk looked completely exhauste. Phil's eyes were as wide as I'd ever seen them. These guys had just played two days on a course under tougher conditions than they had seen in at least a year. No practice round under these conditions.... No Thursday/Friday rounds under these conditons... Suddenly you make the cut and you're "dumped" into Hades on grass.

Somewhere along the line the USGA needs to decide if they can stand up to the outpouring if the Open is the venue that sees Tiger's cut streak come to an end... If the Open sees the leaderboard consist of one of two names we know and 8 or 9 we've never heard of. Or, they need to just bite the bullet and cave in and become another average tour stop. Changing the course conditions for a two day (weekend) event to guarantee we can see clips of our favorites on the weekend is, IMHO, unfair.

Sorry, for the length...

On this and other threads, posters here have given me a lot to think about (special thanks to greenguy and leaguegolf, who showed that reasonable people can respectfully disagree). I understand the argument that it was fair because they all had to play under the same conditions (pretty much), that it came down to a test of shotmaking ability, etc. But still, I guess I'd have to say it was unfair. My reasoning (however tenuous) is that there's something wrong when you get weekend scores like these: Els, 70-80; TClark, 66-79; Garcia, 71-80; Micheel, 70-80; CHIII, 68-83; Leaney, 71-84; Kelly, 71-81. OK, I went down the list looking for dramatic differences, but still these are good players, and when that many of them are off by that much from one day to the next and it's not a hurricane, something's wrong.

I've always thought there was some sense in what then-USGA-president Sandy Tatum said in 1974, when Hale Irwin won at Winged Foot with a score of +7: "We're not trying to embarrass them [the best players in the world]; we're trying to identify them." But the sight of Phil 3-putting the 71st hole may be my lasting image from the event. I think the course unfairly determined the outcome for 1st place, and for many other places down the line. Don't get me wrong: Retief is a proven champion, which is lucky for the USGA.

It'll be interesting to see how the PGA sets up Whistling Straits for its championship. I guess I'd like to see a winning score of -6 or -8, with maybe 10 guys breaking par.

[quote=JimSomebody]
It'll be interesting to see how the PGA sets up Whistling Straits for its championship. QUOTE]

There has always been a big difference in how the USGA sets up a US Open course and how the PGA sets up their championship. There won't be a lot of similarities.

True, all players had to play the same course. HOWEVER, after the early players went off on saturday, the USGA realized the greens were ridiculous and actually started watering them down. This is what set DiMarco off! Some players putted off of tile floor, and others off of wet tile floor.

The Open champuonshp seemed like a joke to me this year.
The greens were the stupidest part, they were so slpoed that they were not meant to be that fast becuase the ball will jyst keep going and going like the energizer bunny.
The USGA doesn't want a birdie fest but if you really think about it that is basically the fairest test of golf, who can stick it tight and make the putts, they end up with the luckiest. Not saying Goosen was lucky cause his play was anything but lucky, he played GRWAT. It was just he recovered good from the unlucky shots when others didn't. You shouldn't hit a perfect shot and then have to watch it end up off the green. Phil Mick even said he played some of the best golf of his life and he shot 1 over! That is flippen nuts for someone of his calibre and being 4th in the world.. You know here is something wrong when you barley touched a put and you roll 50 feet off the green, golf shouldn't be played like that. The rough didn't seem to even be that bad this week therefore the USGA had to be stupid and try and keep the course somehow hard and it eneded cutting/rolling/drying out the greens to make them like putting on glass. The rough wasn't that bad because players these days have so much strangth they just slide right through it, but thre rough is definetley thick enough to not be able to spin it, especially on those greens.
The USGA would make the course 8000 yards if they could and have 12 inch rough and 5 yard wide fairways and even faster greens and more bunkers and more of everything just so that they can say "yeah well our tournament was won with a score of +2 and yours was -17 our tournament is better"
Anyone can be stupid like the USGA and set it up like they did, but most tournament orginzers are not that stupid. It was a joke this year plain and simple, i really feelsorry for Goosen cause he played great and putter exceptionally well and it is over shadowed by the USGA's stupid course set up. When PGA Players are shooting almost 90 and not even playing that bad there is a problem.
Shame on the USGA.

Great posts.

If our definition of fair is providing the same layout for every golfer, then the course was fair.

If our definition of fair is providing a course that rewards good golf shots with par, then it was unfair. My reasoning is good golf = par. Great golf = birdie. Not many of us play good golf consistently enough to shoot par, but we are unable to piece together a couple of shots per round and par a few holes.

I saw drives, slightly off the fairway end up in 8" fescue. That was fair I think. If you took the chance to hit the driver and were not straight you were penalized.

But I also saw low irons hit into greens and roll completely off. I saw putts roll past the cup and end up much further away than the original. Now I may do that when I putt, but the best golfers in the world?

It is a tribute to Goosen that he was able to overcome most of the troubles that others found. He had a pure putting stroke that day, maybe the best putting exhibition ever seen in a Major, and he deservedly won.

But should the US Open be turned into a putting contest?

Just my humble opinion. I still watched and enjoyed the tournament, and the best golfer won.

Fire away!

If I had there perfect lies and conditions i'd shoot at least 5 shots better every round. And it really doesn't matter as long as everyone is playing the same conditions. Which I was upset that the two groups that got screwed before they started watering the greens between groups everyone shoulda had to play it the way they did. Just set it and let mother nature do the rest. Then maybe they will put more thought into their thinking and planning.

Must be nice!!!

My father-in-law said that the course was so tricked-up that the USGA removed the talent element from the golfers and all that was left was luck. I think this is plausible even though Phil and Reteif showed the course could be played. However, we all know that if they went back and played the course this weekend, with the same conditions Phil and Reteif might be the ones in the 80's. But at this point it is all conjecture, the tournament is over, hopefully the USGA has learned something from this.