PDA

View Full Version : Was the USGA setup for the US Open TOO tough?



BrisVegas
20th June 2005, 08:58 AM
I am of the opinion that it is not good for golf to see the world's best players struggle to break 80 in major champs like we've just seen at the US Open.  

Pinehurst #2 is a wonderful, testing course that didn't need to be strangled by the USGA.  When a course has awesome green complexes like that, you don't need to cinch the fairways in to 15 metres wide (or whatever they were).  There's plenty of strategy and test in picking the correct side of the fairway to be on to have a chance of holding the green.  On top of that they grew the rough to ridiculous lenghts.  To me, it was pointlessly punishing.

I would much rather see the game's best shooting scores of around 8-12 under to win a major.  Bring back birdie!

Does anyone else think the USGA has gone too far?

Fishman Dan
20th June 2005, 09:01 AM
I think the rough was a little too punishing, and on top of that the greens were nasty. Either 1 or the other could have been a little more graceful.

Mind you, Campbell showed when you kept it in play, the course was good enough to score on!

McMw
20th June 2005, 09:06 AM
shinnecock was way tougher than pinehurst...

i thought the course was great, tho I still can't get my head over 460yard plus par4s... :shock:

even the rough wasn't too penal....saw plenty of shots that still made the green from the rough...like Gore's into the 12th (?)...and made the birdie...

I did think 28yard wide fairways was stupid tho!!!

Jarro
20th June 2005, 09:06 AM
i loved it :D

personally i get a bit sick of seeing these guys go 20 under to win a tournament every week :roll:

McMw
20th June 2005, 09:07 AM
goose shot himself in the foot on the 2nd hole...to miss the fairway with an iron off the tee???

and his putting didn't help...

Ernie shot 80 last year...Goose did it this year...

BrisVegas
20th June 2005, 09:08 AM
goose shot himself in the foot on the 2nd hole...to miss the fairway with an iron off the tee???

and his putting didn't help...

Ernie shot 80 last year...Goose did it this year...
So - do you reckon the course was fine, but it was just a brain explosion??

McMw
20th June 2005, 09:13 AM
personally, I thought it was a bit of a choke...
he prob thought - 3 shot lead...swinging well, putting well...done deal!!!
coz u know no one's gonna shoot a 65 to win it from nowhere...(cambo should have had the 68)...

I saw only 3 pins (this morning) that were borderline...but then again...with so much green on the fat side, and then the slope able to bring it in close to the hole...why shoot for the pin???

If tiger can lead the field in GIR after R3, with erratic driving (and he even said so after his r4 interview)...and hensby can finished 3rd, dead last in driving, the rough couldn't have been that bad!!!

macleod
20th June 2005, 10:18 AM
as with others i like to see some tough playing days, but i like it spread around..ie. one or two tough days between some nice scoring days with enjoyable watchable golf.

4 days of hard slog and grim faces got boring, i didn't even tape it this morning and plum forgot until i heard it on the radio this morning.

saw the final hole from michael at work and heard the scores and some of the shockers....glad i didn't get up and sit with the cats in the cold to watch it this year!

markTHEblake
20th June 2005, 10:27 AM
this course was nothing special, all the usopen courses are set up just as tough.

Bruce
20th June 2005, 11:51 AM
What's wrong with it being tough? You probably complain about ODI cricket matches where there's a bit of juice in the pitch and sides battle up to 220 instead of making 300 on flat featherbed.

I agree with the principle of setting up courses to challenge the very best players in the game.

BrisVegas
20th June 2005, 12:13 PM
this course was nothing special,  all the usopen courses are set up just as tough.

I disagree. But even if they are all just as tough - do they need to be? I think that once a course get to the ridiculous extreme it becomes a lottery. Who wants to watch the best in the world hack it around and shoot 80?

Donald Ross designed those greens to be a devilish test even when the course is wide open tee to green. It would have been a better tournament if they left it as it was prepared for the 99 Open. The world's best were all in contention at the finish in 99. That's what I want to see.

Anyway, it's interesting to hear that many of you disagree. That's what makes life interesting. :wink:

oz
20th June 2005, 12:30 PM
I thought it was OK. They didn't have the greens running too quickly, which kept it more realistic. If anything, I'd have like to have seen just a little more length on the fringes and aprons, so that the balls didn't get away quite so far when repelled from those greens.

AndyP
20th June 2005, 12:30 PM
Are the scores reflective of the fact that the world's best may have played the course too aggressively? If it is so tough, they may have been better off being patient, taking pars, and waiting for the holes that were genuine birdie chances. :?:

oz
20th June 2005, 12:33 PM
I agree a bit, AndyP. Very few players were taking conservative choices from the tee. Perhaps there is a trend developing to pro golf that says smash it and find it, and when the course setup doesn't suit that, some players may have pretty thin off-suit....

BrisVegas
20th June 2005, 12:37 PM
Are the scores reflective of the fact that the world's best may have played the course too aggressively?  If it is so tough, they may have been better off being patient, taking pars, and waiting for the holes that were genuine birdie chances.  :?:

I would say that "being patient, taking pars, and waiting for the holes that were genuine birdie chances" was exactly what everyone tried to do. These guys are the best in the world. Are you suggesting that they're not clever enough to have a different strategy for a penal US Open layout. :roll:

AndyP
20th June 2005, 12:45 PM
Are you suggesting that they're not clever enough to have a different strategy for a penal US Open layout.   :roll:
No, I was asking.  Note question marks.  :roll: :razz:

I'm not an avid golf watcher, so I couldn't possibly comment on this with any authority. :neutral:

BrisVegas
20th June 2005, 01:13 PM
No, I was asking.  Note question marks.  :roll: :razz:


OK then... In order of your question marks...

1. No.
2. (although not actually a question, but a suggestion :wink: ) No. They already would have adopted that strategy.


Man, my head hurts now. :?

Bruce
20th June 2005, 01:31 PM
I agree a bit, AndyP.  Very few players were taking conservative choices from the tee.  Perhaps there is a trend developing to pro golf that says smash it and find it, and when the course setup doesn't suit that, some players may have pretty thin off-suit....

This was alluded to at The Sand Trap (http://www.thesandtrap.com) in their preview of the US Open.  Bash it as far as you can and then be good with the wedge from a variety of lies.  Course management becomes somewhat one dimensional.

I didn't see any holes like the 7th at Shinnecock last year.  Every hole was manageable if you got it right.  They just reduced the margin for error down to the very hard range.

markTHEblake
20th June 2005, 02:10 PM
check out the scores from other US Opens. its not common to see more than one or two players shoot Red. Winning scores only get to 6 red or better when its been raining

The only thing different about this course from the normal US Open setup is the short grass around the greens.

McMw
20th June 2005, 02:35 PM
and I thought the short grass around the greens were the best part of the layout - made it interesting...

good preparation for B Open - Goose to win... :)

Eag's
20th June 2005, 10:23 PM
Vegas is on the money with this one :smt045
The course was tuff enough without tricking it up even further. Some of those greens were just about unplayable by day 4. How many good shots did you see land close to the flag or even the middle of the green, and run straight off :shock:

The ruff was just plain crazy :smt017 the only option most players had, was to chop the ball back onto the fairway with the lobby :roll: rather pointless.
Even the best in the world will struggle to hit fairways 15m wide consistantly.

Bring on the British open I say, then we will see how this game should be played
:wink:

McMw
20th June 2005, 11:23 PM
but how many shots did u see from the rough that actually made it to the green, and gave the player a decent chance at a birdie or a par???

this usually isn't the case on any other US Open layout....at least pinehurst gave the players a chance...

markTHEblake
20th June 2005, 11:33 PM
yeah good point, US open courses normally have rough completely surrounding the greens meaning its impossible to hit a green from the rough.

Eags, you have just described a couple of (british) Open courses to a tee.

cazandpaul
21st June 2005, 04:49 AM
The only problem with the course from my point of view was that some of the pins were too close to drop off points - otherwise it was a good test of golf.

Eag's
21st June 2005, 07:28 AM
but how many shots did u see from the rough that actually made it to the green, and gave the player a decent chance at a birdie or a par???

this usually isn't the case on any other US Open layout....at least pinehurst gave the players a chance...

Sure some made it to the green, but on average 30 to 40 feet away.
When you have the best players in the world teeing it up and not one of them breaks par, then opportunities must of been very slim.

Blakey how many British opens in the last 10 years have you seen where the winner does not break par :?:
Most of the time the scoring is very good.

Jarro
21st June 2005, 07:31 AM
The only problem with the course from my point of view was that some of the pins were too close to drop off points.

but then doesn't that come down to the players course-management :smt017 some of the players got a little too cute trying to stiff pins that were in shocking positions .. playing safe to the center of the green would have been the more sensible option in my opinion.

BrisVegas
21st June 2005, 07:42 AM
Whilst the greens might look a reasonable size, the effective target is more like 5-8 metres in diameter versus 20-30 metres like on normal greens. I don't know how they did it, but the greens also seemed HARD, yet slowish. The typical PGA tour greens play SOFT, yet quick to putt on. Perhaps if this was played 15 years ago when the pros used balata balls the greens would have held better. It seemed to me like the balls just weren't holding, even when the player did manage to find a flattish section of green...

It seemed like there wasn't much moisture in the greens. Plenty of the runoff areas looked scorched brown too.

McMw
21st June 2005, 09:04 AM
The only problem with the course from my point of view was that some of the pins were too close to drop off points - otherwise it was a good test of golf.

as mentioned above....yeah...the pros who went for the sucker pins got what they deserved if the didn't hit it good enuff...

the effective green on most of the holes is 75% of the actual green size...where the ball will stay on the green...

it's not as if the pins were set on a slope like the 7th green last year...

and most time, when the players were hitting to the fat of the green, their spin and the falloffs could even bring in the ball closer to the pins...

Gore's hack from the rough in R4, which not only made it to the green, but it also broked towards the pin for a 10footer birdie putt, which he made...
I can't remember a recent US Open when that would have been a possibility...

BrisVegas
21st June 2005, 09:16 AM
the effective green on most of the holes is 75% of the actual green size...where the ball will stay on the green....


Let's agree to disagree.

Jarro
21st June 2005, 12:01 PM
i seem to recall Johnny Miller saying he thought the target on the greens, in his opinion, was no bigger than 1500 square feet :?

they certainly looked tiny on the telly

Courty
21st June 2005, 05:29 PM
I voted for 'too tough'. People don't want to pay to see double & triple bogies. They can wander down to their nearest club and see amateur's do that. The want to see some scoring. Now, I don't like seeing guys go 20+ under either, but they should be around par or a few under each round.








IMHO. :roll:

goughy
21st June 2005, 05:50 PM
Having recently read a golf digest article on the greens at pinehurst #2 I'd say too hard. The article goes into great detail regarding the fact that the greens bear little relationship to the original ross designs.

The basics have to do with the top dressing done to the greens over the years. Much of this was done without/before aeration so the green height has risen dramatically over the years - something like 1 or 2 feet. This has created greens which are in effect upside down saucers, with edges that drop the ball off the green dramatically.

From the little I saw that seemed to be the case to me. Mor than once I saw approaches that were almost stopped within a few feet past the hole start to gather speed and continue to roll off the green and end up in bunkers. It's not that I feel if you hit the green you deserve to stay on the green. But I saw shots worthy of much applause end up off the green, and I don't feel that a good shot should be punished. If a golfer has the guts to go at a difficult pin and executes the shot well they should be rewarded.

Just my opinion. While I don't think 20 under should continually be winning tournaments I don't have a problem with sub par rounds. These are spose to be the best in the world. If I want to see guys hack it round from the rough and have shots roll off greens etc then I'll go down to my club and watch us mere mortals hack it round.

The other side of the coin is - they all played the same course. Someone shot a lower score than everyone else and he one. Isn't that the final objective?

I bet I wouldn't have shot 80 on that course! Probably not even 90.

McMw
21st June 2005, 05:54 PM
but we also did see many great shots stick...

16/18 greens from Goose on D1....

Tiger leading the field after 3round in GIRs...




to be honest, this was the first US Open where I thought the final score didn't really matter....

which is a weird thing for me to say, coz I normally hate watching US Open scores...

what's done is done...let's look forward to St Andrews.... :D

Jarro
21st June 2005, 05:56 PM
i still can't believe how well Hensby did when you consider he was LAST for fairways hit going into the last round :shock:

amazing :?

nudgee
21st June 2005, 06:00 PM
Mark Hensby last in fairways hit????? Doesn't he use that driver... :wink:

markTHEblake
21st June 2005, 09:40 PM
only one player shot even par. have a look at the last 20 or so opens, Even Par would have picked up 2nd place in half of them and no worse then probably a top 5 in all of them.

apart from 1 freaky score of 12 under (which was irrelevant becuase 2nd place was 3 over) the US Open has hardly ever been blitzed.

Lets face it the USGA has always set a target that Par is goiing to be an incredible score in a USopen, and they wont change. Thats why nobody has shot better than 272.

I agree that this US Open course was too tough, but hardly tougher than any ones we have seen in recent times.

Be nice to see if there was some scoring average stats we could find to settle this discussion 8)

BrisVegas
22nd June 2005, 06:03 AM
While I don't think 20 under should continually be winning tournaments I don't have a problem with sub par rounds.... If I want to see guys hack it round from the rough and have shots roll off greens etc then I'll go down to my club and watch us mere mortals hack it round.
....
I bet I wouldn't have shot 80 on that course!  Probably not even 90.
Couldn't agree more Dean.

BrisVegas
22nd June 2005, 06:11 AM
...the US Open has hardly ever been blitzed.

I agree that this US Open course was too tough, but hardly tougher than any ones we have seen in recent times.  


Just because it's always been too tough, that doesn't make it good for the game? Why is there such an obsession with "tricking up" classic courses. :roll:

1 guy shot even par. The other 100+ couldn't get close.

As I said at the start...

I am of the opinion that it is not good for golf to see the world's best players struggle to break 80 in major champs like we've just seen at the US Open.

I would much rather see the game's best shooting scores of around 8-12 under to win a major. Bring back birdie!

Virgal_Tracy
22nd June 2005, 11:32 AM
I'll disagree and say that it wasn't too tough. Consistency is the name of the game. Goosen went into the final day at 3 under. Campbell and woods shot 69's, Campbell should've been 68 and Tiger could've been better than that except that his putting let him down.

I personally like to see a course that challenges the pro's rather than the normal drive and pitch courses that they play on. There were plenty of under par rounds over the 4 days but players just weren't able to sustain the scoring.

To me unless the wind blows for the B.O. it will be a bore fest as the pro's will tear it apart because there is no rough to get into trouble in.

how often do we play to our handicap? Why shouldn't courses for the pro's be set up to reflect their greaster ability. just my H.O.