I do like to see the strenuous test, and understand that there is a fine enough line that will be crossed occasionally. I'm just glad that the best player won. I hadn't thought of it, but I guess they could start play on both nines like they did on Thurs, and Fri. Not sure how that works for the weekend spectators or TV, but it would compress the time between start and finish of play somewhat.
2018 U.S. Open Discussion Thread
If it affects TV, the sponsors $ will weigh in! Summertime golf is always going to yield varying conditions for the AM/PM tee times. It's mostly unavoidable. I liked your suggestion on the grass height on the greens. A little taller and the dryout would not have been as extreme. I still think the whining aftermath is extreme since the top players handled the conditions well. I will concede that the conditions delta between AM/PM was too large tho.
sdandrea1 I agree. There will always be some differential. But whatever they can do within their control to make it as fair as possible should be done. Rough adds a lot of luck factor in that two people can hit into the rough and one may be able to strike the back of the ball somewhat cleanly while the other might sink into almost unplayable, but at least it is random. I like watching the players play from the shaved lies and having options to putt, run, or fly the ball vs. the randomness of the rough, but in the summertime the moisture content is too variable to keep the shaved areas fair.
Olympic Club, Oakmont, Shinnecock Hills.... three venues where the greens are already incredibly challenging, either because of their size or the severity of their undulations. And the USGA has goofed with US Open setups in each of them. Olympic club back in '98. Shinnecock back in 2004. Oakmont in 2016. And once again - Shinnecock in 2018.
These greens are already incredibly challenging during normal play when the grass isn't dead and the greens aren't lightening fast. So there's a very fine line to be walked as far as margin for error with trying to make those greens more challenging without going overboard and forcing the outcome to be more about luck than skill.
The USGA has a history of reference to call upon regarding which courses could present problems with current-day 14-stimp speed greens to challenge today's players. There's already been a precedent there on these layouts with what they should or shouldn't do regarding green speeds and hole locations.
Pebble Beach also has some fairly undulated greens. There are some holes with greens that simply weren't designed to be stimped at 13. Then you factor in the wind, the lack of humidity, the sun and the overall dryness....
I mean - they've got the best agronomists and superintendents in the business at their disposal, yet they still find a way to f it all up.
Mike Davis admitted they f-ed up Saturday's setup.
And they did.
- Edited
This made no sense. Let's widen the fairways, but kill the grass on the greens so they're bumpy and extremely fast. Imagine how the dead greens would've been if they didn't get any rain. So let's identify the luckiest shots into the green and best goofy greens putter. Makes no sense.
Here's what they should've done. With Shinnecock being on the water (links style) set it up with the worst possible weather (wind etc.) conditions possible, which is what the British Open does.
The USGA should shoot for narrow fairways, long rough, with smooth live grass greens and set the speed fast but at a reasonable speed. That would be a good test. Hell even grow the grass in the fairways so you don't get 50 yards of roll off the tee.
They would've had a better (non goofy golf) tournament had the USGA let the Shinnecock superintendent set the course up.
With all the moisture green reading equipment they still screwed things up. They had to really work hard to screw it up.
sdandrea1 it got out of control on Sat, they just needed to spritz those greens where the pins were in diabolical spots. The usga is aneasy Target and they've made it that way.....but I also think we, the golfing public need to take some responsibility in it....as we are always seemingly asking for this, and we never learn the lesson either. I don't mind par being the winning score but if there is no way to stop a ball on the green on a good shot, then it's past the point of a true test. The usga does listen....they have changes rules based off Lexi, Dustin....they have started to simplify or make more user-friendly rules recently.....same goes for the conditions at a usga event, or where the venues are held....so I also blame the folks that need these guys to struggle and unnecessarily so!
- Edited
The USGA got lucky that it rained on Wednesday. Only 4 players broke par on Thursday. Imagine if they hadn't had rain on Wednesday. It would've been a bigger fiasco.
Anyway, look for the next big fight with the USGA trying to roll back the golf ball. Hopefully the Tours and manufacturers put up a bigger fight than they did when the USGA banned anchoring. Mike Davis did a 180 in less than a year on that one.
I cab think if two possible solutions to the disparity between earlier and later tee times on Saturday, but I'm sure tv and sponsors would fight against both of them.
1) Assign tee times randomly on Saturday, too. Then maybe the tournament leader hours out with Finau in the morning, or maybe not, but if they used a random number generator, nobody could say it favored the players who played worse in the first two rounds.
2) send the players out in the reverse order of what they are currently doing. Make it a reward for good play the first two days that you get to go out early on Saturday. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
Again, likely to be fought because they want the excitement to occur in the evening, not at 11 a.m.
ode
I don't care about ratings!
LOL
It has a Nascar feel to it. Qualify higher up and lead the pack. Stay out of trouble.
Maybe take it a step further and let the final pairing on Sunday decide if they want to go first or last.
Submit their decision separately and secretly (unknown to each other)
Might stop these late day slugs from playing for Pars because "that's all he needed to do to win/make the cut" which is boring as fock.
I liked James Hahn's quote - "The USGA doesn't know how to run a professional tournament because they don't run professional tournaments". 
- Edited
Hahn's quote is correct. You have amateurs trying to run a professional tournament.
Heard Michael Breed say maybe the USGA should build their own course. That way they can set it up the way they want with greens having sub air systems etc.. Fox pays them $100 million so they have the money. Not a crazy Idea IMO.
Sneakylong Heard Michael Breed say maybe the USGA should build their own course. That way they can set it up the way they want with greens having sub air systems etc.. Fox pays them $100 million so they have the money. Not a crazy Idea IMO
Windmills? Tunnels?
- Edited
I don't think it would help.
Sub-air systems are designed to keep the grass growing on the greens with ideal soil temperature and moisture. The USGA would turn that shit off in a heartbeat and shave them down to the dirt almost.
It would be like giving a 14-yr-old who's never before gotten behind the wheel of a car the keys to a Lamborghini.
They've simply lost the plot over the years. The further these guys on tour hit the ball, the more extreme they get. And all because they're willing to do all they can to get the winning score north of par.
What happened last year at Erin Hills had everything to do with what played out this year at Shinnecock. It was a gross overcorrection, and it's all because, above all else, they desperately want to preserve the longstanding reputation that their tournament is the most difficult challenge in all of golf, even if their setup goes to extremes and humiliates the players.
Do you honestly think sub-air systems would prevent them from drying out the greens and having them near-death on Sunday?
How would the USGA set up Augusta National in the Masters if it were their tournament? They'd undoubtedly have that place burnt out and brown. They'd probably look into getting sub-air for the fairways so they could turn up the temps and dry the fairways out to firm and fast. +10 would be a winning score there if they were in charge.
They've lost their way. Instead of regulating equipment and keeping the standard the same for their tournament, they've decided to go to extreme setups to combat the distance issue.
Never mind the fact that narrowing fairways and growing the rough would effectively do the same thing.
But since there are a bunch of imbeciles running things there, you get the circus show that the US Open has become.
Some of it has to be the players and their ability to hit shots in various conditions. I would bet a Travino in his prime would have figured it out.
With all due respect to Trevino, he didn't average 320 off the tee nor did his competitors. They weren't hitting into greens that were double-cut and rolled and hadn't had hardly any water in 24 hours, from beyond 200 yards.
In fact - the greens were so slow back then that many players had to put more emphasis on "hitting" their putts versus "stroking" them.
It's a different game today. But it shouldn't be that different.
- Edited
I think Breed's sub air systems comment was in regards that they could then control the moisture in the greens better. They wouldn't need to kill the greens to the extent to get the speed up. They could just dry them out as much as they need to regardless of how much rain they got.
I'd rather see them have their own course than ruin the reputations of these iconic courses which they seem to do too often.