When Did 280 Stop Winning US Opens?

Apparently a long time ago!

I was all set to ding the current USGA powers-that-be for softening the US Open, until I looked at historical data. The trend since WWII has been pretty clear. Lower scores are winning the US Open. In the decade from 1950-1959, the winning score in each year was 280 or more. In the current unfinished decade, 2010-2017, the winning score has been at or above 280 only 37.5% of the time (3/8). The trend from 1950 to today has not been a straight line, but it is unmistakable. The days of 280 or higher winning the US Open are numbered.

The course just needed 4 straight days of high wind and no rain and the finishing number would be completely different. Clearly the USGA was banking on either more wind, or a bit less rain. But they also clearly don't need the "par or worse" as a benchmark anymore.

Just remember, it was less than 10 or 15 years ago when the USGA took a fire hose to the green, at certain times of the day on a Sunday. That right there (to me) was the reason the USGA has no real "honor" or value to try and compare themselves to the Masters, British Open, or any tournament really, let alone their own scores between years.

It's a tournament that gets the attention because it's a major, not because of how well it puts on a tournament.

Just like trying to cut someones hourly wage back after they have been at their current job, it's difficult to take away the "major" from the USGA

Davis stated that the "par or better" standard was no longer a consideration.

Some doubt his sincerity, but results back up his position.

Apparently a long time ago!

 

I was all set to ding the current USGA powers-that-be for softening the US Open, until I looked at historical data. The trend since WWII has been pretty clear. Lower scores are winning the US Open. In the decade from 1950-1959, the winning score in each year was 280 or more. In the current unfinished decade, 2010-2017, the winning score has been at or above 280 only 37.5% of the time (3/8). The trend from 1950 to today has not been a straight line, but it is unmistakable. The days of 280 or higher winning the US Open are numbered.

Great data JC. I like to see the pros struggle in the U.S. Open, it's still OUR national championship, isn't it?

Apparently a long time ago!

 

I was all set to ding the current USGA powers-that-be for softening the US Open, until I looked at historical data. The trend since WWII has been pretty clear. Lower scores are winning the US Open. In the decade from 1950-1959, the winning score in each year was 280 or more. In the current unfinished decade, 2010-2017, the winning score has been at or above 280 only 37.5% of the time (3/8). The trend from 1950 to today has not been a straight line, but it is unmistakable. The days of 280 or higher winning the US Open are numbered.

 

Great data JC. I like to see the pros struggle in the U.S. Open, it's still OUR national championship, isn't it?

Apparently a long time ago!

 

I was all set to ding the current USGA powers-that-be for softening the US Open, until I looked at historical data. The trend since WWII has been pretty clear. Lower scores are winning the US Open. In the decade from 1950-1959, the winning score in each year was 280 or more. In the current unfinished decade, 2010-2017, the winning score has been at or above 280 only 37.5% of the time (3/8). The trend from 1950 to today has not been a straight line, but it is unmistakable. The days of 280 or higher winning the US Open are numbered.

 

Great data JC. I like to see the pros struggle in the U.S. Open, it's still OUR national championship, isn't it?

Which would mean it's not just yours? Not all of us think seeing great players struggle to shoot even par is interesting to watch. But then not all of us watch NASCAR either. I don't like watching car wrecks or goofy golf. Making pros shoot even is either goofy or tricked up.

We are both entitled to OUR opinions, both protected by the 1st Amendment. I hope you have a great Summer!

Apparently a long time ago!

 

I was all set to ding the current USGA powers-that-be for softening the US Open, until I looked at historical data. The trend since WWII has been pretty clear. Lower scores are winning the US Open. In the decade from 1950-1959, the winning score in each year was 280 or more. In the current unfinished decade, 2010-2017, the winning score has been at or above 280 only 37.5% of the time (3/8). The trend from 1950 to today has not been a straight line, but it is unmistakable. The days of 280 or higher winning the US Open are numbered.

 

Great data JC. I like to see the pros struggle in the U.S. Open, it's still OUR national championship, isn't it?

Which would mean it's not just yours? Not all of us think seeing great players struggle to shoot even par is interesting to watch. But then not all of us watch NASCAR either. I don't like watching car wrecks or goofy golf. Making pros shoot even is either goofy or tricked up.

What's the point then? The idea is that it's the sternest test a golfer will face. Will that require the course be taken to the edge, I damn well hope so. Otherwise, it loses it's connection to history. It is a fine line and entirely possible to go over once in a while, so what? That possibility exists once a year.

If a course needs high winds and no rain to have teeth, then it's not a tough course.

Davis stated that the "par or better" standard was no longer a consideration.

Some doubt his sincerity, but results back up his position.

To the detriment of the sport.

I don't think perfect weather is the answer either. The scoring will continue to be low if they continue to set golf courses up that don't test the players in the right ways. Simply adding length is a terrible strategy, these guys are too good off the short stuff that inevitably once they get on the greens there will be players who are hot with the putter that week and take advantage hence this week. Olympic Club and Merion provided two of the best US Open tests in recent memory despite being short by todays standards (7100s roughly was Olympic Club, 6800 roughly for Merion). Narrow the fairways, small and firm greens will challenge the best players and force them to play different shots rather than just the driver.

It got to the point where they were throwing away the integrity of the event in an attempt to challenge the raw ability of the field. They could either turn it into a Bushwood amusement park or lighten up a little.

If a course needs high winds and no rain to have teeth, then it's not a tough course.

 

Some of you want car wrecks. I get it. Many have a romanticised idea of what the US Open test has traditionally been. But what to do if the equipment and level of play have improved enough that to get the target score of par that some desire means tricking up a course to the point of being unfair? Merion was over the top. Had to be to make a 6800 yard course difficult enough to get the scores that were shot. I agree the width of the fairways last week was overly generous. Just 5-10 yards narrower in strategic spots could have introduced flyers and doubt into the players game. But if a course needs to be conditioned like Merion was to be a stern enough test it should not be used as a venue any longer.

I would suggest folks get used to 10-15 under scores at the US Open. Clubs seen to be less willing to allow their course to be abused that way and the USGA has finally, imo, recognized that making a field of great golfers shoot even par is not a test. It's a farce.

Very few really tough par 72s these days, in fact Augusta is maybe one of the toughest that we see every year, Sawgrass as well but they're still well under par. Just too many birdie chances on par 5s for golfers playing well, 16 on par 72 vs 8 on par 70 over the course of a week. Is there such a thing as a three-shotter anymore after Koepka and Thomas on 18 last week?

The rest of the holes have to be really tough to keep the scores down. When was the last time a US Open was at a par 72?

The description of the US Open on Wikipedia sums up its supposed identity, which I don't think it was this year.

"The U.S. Open is staged at a variety of courses, set up in such a way that scoring is very difficult, with a premium placed on accurate driving."

Par used to be considered a good score, now not so much. At one time a "C" used to be considered a decent grade, now it's the new "F".

Our standards have changed.

Funny thing about all this, if for example, Dustin Johnson shoots par, people will get on here and say what a bad round he had. However, they will also say, "I broke 80!" Not a very good round after all, eh?

While basketball players are bigger and stronger than yesteryear there is no talk of raising the rim, making the court bigger, or dialing back their sneakers.

Courses don't need to be made longer. Equipment doesn't need to be changed. Simply set the course up in a way that is a challenge to the professional golfer, yet within his abilities to post a good score. If a tournament goes to -20 and up, there is something wrong with the course. If a major is to far in the minus category the course wasn't set-up properly.

Do bowling pros whine and cry when the PBA lays down a tough oil pattern that restricts the scoring in the 200-220 range? No, it's a different challenge on every tour stop and the good ones figure it out. If they went out there with easy patterns, the bowling finals would be really boring because one screw up and it would probably be over as these guys can bowl 800+ on your local Jim's Bowl-a-rama patterns. Bowling technology has changed and evolved over the years. Does that mean the game can't be made a challenge to the pros?

Every golf tournament doesn't have to have a -16 winner. U.S. Open used to be the unique egg that proved a challenge. They gave in the whiners and moaners. You don't need tough weather to make a course tough, that's the biggest BS argument of all time. "Oh the reason they shot so low is because it rained." Yea, it had nothing to do with the 60 yard wide fairways and weak greenside hazards.

264 won the Open Championship last year. Do you think that the R&A will go back there? I think they will. By the way, it was a very compelling championship, with excellent golf displayed by Henrik and Phil.

The R&A might try to lengthen that course a bit next time, if that is possible. Perhaps try to grow some of the rough higher. But we have to get used to the fact that with the modern ball and driver, and a higher standard among the best players, the scores are going to be lower.

Heck, look at St Andrews. When the Open Championship was first played there, the winning score are around level 5's. Now it is around 3.75. Play has improved. Does that make St Andrews irrelevant as a championship course. The R&A doesn't think so, and I happen to agree.

ON the subject of Erin Hills, I happen to like the fact that the US Open was staged on a long course, which brought driver back into play. They might add a bunker or two, and bring a hazard into play; but by and large I enjoyed the championship there.

The R&A might try to lengthen that course a bit next time, if that is possible. Perhaps try to grow some of the rough higher. But we have to get used to the fact that with the modern ball and driver, and a higher standard among the best players, the scores are going to be lower.

But they don't have to be, and it doesn't take much creativity to make a hole harder.

So 40 years from now when drivers are going 400 yards, do we just leave par at 4 for 400 yard holes just because guys like you want to wave the white flag? That's ridiculous. Technology evolves then the courses must evolve if you have any concept of the definition of par. This is common sense stuff.

TIGHTEN FAIRWAYS

LENGTHEN ROUGH

PROTECT GREENS

This is common sense stuff! There's simply too many shots now with nearly zero risk and that must change

I know that Haney is well Haney but he made the point on his radio show which I think is true. On a Par 72 everyone is essentially starting at -16. I'm not saying that is what will get shot but it is very reasonable to think it to be realistic. Guys just have so much length there really aren't Par 5's anymore. So if you start with the -16 premise, the winning score was essentially even.

Interestingly Koepka only played the Par 5's at -6.

The R&A might try to lengthen that course a bit next time, if that is possible. Perhaps try to grow some of the rough higher. But we have to get used to the fact that with the modern ball and driver, and a higher standard among the best players, the scores are going to be lower.

 

But they don't have to be, and it doesn't take much creativity to make a hole harder.

 

So 40 years from now when drivers are going 400 yards, do we just leave par at 4 for 400 yard holes just because guys like you want to wave the white flag? That's ridiculous. Technology evolves then the courses must evolve if you have any concept of the definition of par. This is common sense stuff.

 

TIGHTEN FAIRWAYS

LENGTHEN ROUGH

PROTECT GREENS

 

This is common sense stuff! There's simply too many shots now with nearly zero risk and that must change

Or you could just call it a par 3

The R&A might try to lengthen that course a bit next time, if that is possible. Perhaps try to grow some of the rough higher. But we have to get used to the fact that with the modern ball and driver, and a higher standard among the best players, the scores are going to be lower.

 

But they don't have to be, and it doesn't take much creativity to make a hole harder.

 

So 40 years from now when drivers are going 400 yards, do we just leave par at 4 for 400 yard holes just because guys like you want to wave the white flag? That's ridiculous. Technology evolves then the courses must evolve if you have any concept of the definition of par. This is common sense stuff.

 

TIGHTEN FAIRWAYS How narrow?

LENGTHEN ROUGH how long? Ankle? Shin? Waist high?

PROTECT GREENS with what? And where? Long rough? Bunkers all around the green so you have to fly it on?

 

This is common sense stuff! There's simply too many shots now with nearly zero risk and that must change

How do you propose to "protect" greens? Are you trying to keep guys from hitting them?

If a course needs high winds and no rain to have teeth, then it's not a tough course.

 

Let the R & A know that. Some courses wind is normally a given and makes the course.

 

Some of you want car wrecks. I get it. Many have a romanticised idea of what the US Open test has traditionally been. But what to do if the equipment and level of play have improved enough that to get the target score of par that some desire means tricking up a course to the point of being unfair? Merion was over the top. Had to be to make a 6800 yard course difficult enough to get the scores that were shot. I agree the width of the fairways last week was overly generous. Just 5-10 yards narrower in strategic spots could have introduced flyers and doubt into the players game. But if a course needs to be conditioned like Merion was to be a stern enough test it should not be used as a venue any longer.

I would suggest folks get used to 10-15 under scores at the US Open. Clubs seen to be less willing to allow their course to be abused that way and the USGA has finally, imo, recognized that making a field of great golfers shoot even par is not a test. It's a farce.

Why is shooting even par in a U.S. Open a farce and a train wreck and not a test?

Very few really tough par 72s these days, in fact Augusta is maybe one of the toughest that we see every year, Sawgrass as well but they're still well under par. Just too many birdie chances on par 5s for golfers playing well, 16 on par 72 vs 8 on par 70 over the course of a week. Is there such a thing as a three-shotter anymore after Koepka and Thomas on 18 last week?

 

The rest of the holes have to be really tough to keep the scores down. When was the last time a US Open was at a par 72?

 

The description of the US Open on Wikipedia sums up its supposed identity, which I don't think it was this year.

 

"The U.S. Open is staged at a variety of courses, set up in such a way that scoring is very difficult, with a premium placed on accurate driving."

This is exactly what the U.S. Open should be. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why there is a problem with them conducting a tournament where this is the case.

If a course needs high winds and no rain to have teeth, then it's not a tough course.

 

Let the R & A know that. Some courses wind is normally a given and makes the course.

 

Some of you want car wrecks. I get it. Many have a romanticised idea of what the US Open test has traditionally been. But what to do if the equipment and level of play have improved enough that to get the target score of par that some desire means tricking up a course to the point of being unfair? Merion was over the top. Had to be to make a 6800 yard course difficult enough to get the scores that were shot. I agree the width of the fairways last week was overly generous. Just 5-10 yards narrower in strategic spots could have introduced flyers and doubt into the players game. But if a course needs to be conditioned like Merion was to be a stern enough test it should not be used as a venue any longer.

I would suggest folks get used to 10-15 under scores at the US Open. Clubs seen to be less willing to allow their course to be abused that way and the USGA has finally, imo, recognized that making a field of great golfers shoot even par is not a test. It's a farce.

 

Why is shooting even par in a U.S. Open a farce and a train wreck and not a test?

Edit/addendum If you want to give the players a "test" why not give them the opportunity to pass the test?

Apparently a long time ago!

 

I was all set to ding the current USGA powers-that-be for softening the US Open, until I looked at historical data. The trend since WWII has been pretty clear. Lower scores are winning the US Open. In the decade from 1950-1959, the winning score in each year was 280 or more. In the current unfinished decade, 2010-2017, the winning score has been at or above 280 only 37.5% of the time (3/8). The trend from 1950 to today has not been a straight line, but it is unmistakable. The days of 280 or higher winning the US Open are numbered.

 

Great data JC. I like to see the pros struggle in the U.S. Open, it's still OUR national championship, isn't it?

Which would mean it's not just yours? Not all of us think seeing great players struggle to shoot even par is interesting to watch. But then not all of us watch NASCAR either. I don't like watching car wrecks or goofy golf. Making pros shoot even is either goofy or tricked up.

 

What's the point then? The idea is that it's the sternest test a golfer will face. Will that require the course be taken to the edge, I damn well hope so. Otherwise, it loses it's connection to history. It is a fine line and entirely possible to go over once in a while, so what? That possibility exists once a year.

Whose idea? It isn't my idea. My idea is that the field is so good they that is makes it the sternest test. I hate seeing trumped up USGA courses.

If a course needs high winds and no rain to have teeth, then it's not a tough course.

 

Let the R & A know that. Some courses wind is normally a given and makes the course.

 

Some of you want car wrecks. I get it. Many have a romanticised idea of what the US Open test has traditionally been. But what to do if the equipment and level of play have improved enough that to get the target score of par that some desire means tricking up a course to the point of being unfair? Merion was over the top. Had to be to make a 6800 yard course difficult enough to get the scores that were shot. I agree the width of the fairways last week was overly generous. Just 5-10 yards narrower in strategic spots could have introduced flyers and doubt into the players game. But if a course needs to be conditioned like Merion was to be a stern enough test it should not be used as a venue any longer.

I would suggest folks get used to 10-15 under scores at the US Open. Clubs seen to be less willing to allow their course to be abused that way and the USGA has finally, imo, recognized that making a field of great golfers shoot even par is not a test. It's a farce.

 

Why is shooting even par in a U.S. Open a farce and a train wreck and not a test?

Just my opinion but when you take a field full of guys that on the handicap scale would be +5 to +8 or +9 and make them shoot even par-at best- then the course is over the edge. Courses should be a bit wider than the days of 25 yard fairways and even 25 was the exception not the rule. If you want to essentially limit the guys to 260 off the tee have at it. We have post after post on wrx decrying the fast fairways on tour. You cannot have a fair test on many courses that hold the national open with narrow fairways and fast fairways. Think of Olympic in SF for example. Guys would have to bunt it around to keep it out of the rough. Is that a test or a farce? When players hit it 260 with slower fairways the 25 yard fairways the the equivalent of 35-40 yards today.And then you have firmer faster greens to hit to with a ball that does not spin as much and that test changes as well. Many courses today have run off areas around the greens like at Pinehurst but we have guys posting that ALL US Open courses should have ankle deep rough immediately next to the green. In spite of the fact that there have been articles over the years explaining why limiting players to a chunk and hope and run is most assuredly NOT a way to test them. But hey(or should it be hay?) it drives the scores up so why not?

 

Edit/addendum If you want to give the players a "test" why not give them the opportunity to pass the test?

Fair enough.

For me, when I read what you say, the thought that comes to my mind is that accuracy is simply no longer the premium that it used to be.

If a course needs high winds and no rain to have teeth, then it's not a tough course.

 

Let the R & A know that. Some courses wind is normally a given and makes the course.

 

Some of you want car wrecks. I get it. Many have a romanticised idea of what the US Open test has traditionally been. But what to do if the equipment and level of play have improved enough that to get the target score of par that some desire means tricking up a course to the point of being unfair? Merion was over the top. Had to be to make a 6800 yard course difficult enough to get the scores that were shot. I agree the width of the fairways last week was overly generous. Just 5-10 yards narrower in strategic spots could have introduced flyers and doubt into the players game. But if a course needs to be conditioned like Merion was to be a stern enough test it should not be used as a venue any longer.

I would suggest folks get used to 10-15 under scores at the US Open. Clubs seen to be less willing to allow their course to be abused that way and the USGA has finally, imo, recognized that making a field of great golfers shoot even par is not a test. It's a farce.

 

Why is shooting even par in a U.S. Open a farce and a train wreck and not a test?

Because the USGA does it by making ankle deep rough with fast, narrow, fairways. The US Open is the only tournament in the world that players play golf with 25 yard fairways, fairways that give players 50 or more yards of roll out, and greens of glass. Golf isn't played that way. It is an 18 hole putt putt course.

Personally, I wasn't as excited about Erin Hills as previous years. It is a fantastic golf course, but it was set up too easy. If the USGA just stuck with a rota that included the most iconic courses (Merion, Pebble, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Winged Foot, etc.) They wouldn't need to trick them out to keep scores near par. Also, those courses seem to be more exciting... at lease for me.

If a course needs high winds and no rain to have teeth, then it's not a tough course.

 

Let the R & A know that. Some courses wind is normally a given and makes the course.

 

Some of you want car wrecks. I get it. Many have a romanticised idea of what the US Open test has traditionally been. But what to do if the equipment and level of play have improved enough that to get the target score of par that some desire means tricking up a course to the point of being unfair? Merion was over the top. Had to be to make a 6800 yard course difficult enough to get the scores that were shot. I agree the width of the fairways last week was overly generous. Just 5-10 yards narrower in strategic spots could have introduced flyers and doubt into the players game. But if a course needs to be conditioned like Merion was to be a stern enough test it should not be used as a venue any longer.

I would suggest folks get used to 10-15 under scores at the US Open. Clubs seen to be less willing to allow their course to be abused that way and the USGA has finally, imo, recognized that making a field of great golfers shoot even par is not a test. It's a farce.

 

Why is shooting even par in a U.S. Open a farce and a train wreck and not a test?

Just my opinion but when you take a field full of guys that on the handicap scale would be +5 to +8 or +9 and make them shoot even par-at best- then the course is over the edge. Courses should be a bit wider than the days of 25 yard fairways and even 25 was the exception not the rule. If you want to essentially limit the guys to 260 off the tee have at it. We have post after post on wrx decrying the fast fairways on tour. You cannot have a fair test on many courses that hold the national open with narrow fairways and fast fairways. Think of Olympic in SF for example. Guys would have to bunt it around to keep it out of the rough. Is that a test or a farce? When players hit it 260 with slower fairways the 25 yard fairways the the equivalent of 35-40 yards today.And then you have firmer faster greens to hit to with a ball that does not spin as much and that test changes as well. Many courses today have run off areas around the greens like at Pinehurst but we have guys posting that ALL US Open courses should have ankle deep rough immediately next to the green. In spite of the fact that there have been articles over the years explaining why limiting players to a chunk and hope and run is most assuredly NOT a way to test them. But hey(or should it be hay?) it drives the scores up so why not?

 

Edit/addendum If you want to give the players a "test" why not give them the opportunity to pass the test?

 

Fair enough.

 

For me, when I read what you say, the thought that comes to my mind is that accuracy is simply no longer the premium that it used to be.

Personally, I wasn't as excited about Erin Hills as previous years. It is a fantastic golf course, but it was set up too easy. If the USGA just stuck with a rota that included the most iconic courses (Merion, Pebble, Oakmont, Shinnecock, Winged Foot, etc.) They wouldn't need to trick them out to keep scores near par. Also, those courses seem to be more exciting... at lease for me.

IMO, This was a total outlier due to lack of wind and a soft course. 9/10 times this course yields higher scores. Just got some bad luck as far as weather goes. But Koepka would've won regardless. His performance was one of the most brilliant displays of ball striking of all time at a US Open

Do bowling pros whine and cry when the PBA lays down a tough oil pattern that restricts the scoring in the 200-220 range? No, it's a different challenge on every tour stop and the good ones figure it out. If they went out there with easy patterns, the bowling finals would be really boring because one screw up and it would probably be over as these guys can bowl 800+ on your local Jim's Bowl-a-rama patterns. Bowling technology has changed and evolved over the years. Does that mean the game can't be made a challenge to the pros?

 

Every golf tournament doesn't have to have a -16 winner. U.S. Open used to be the unique egg that proved a challenge. They gave in the whiners and moaners. You don't need tough weather to make a course tough, that's the biggest BS argument of all time. "Oh the reason they shot so low is because it rained." Yea, it had nothing to do with the 60 yard wide fairways and weak greenside hazards.

So the answer to unacceptably low scores in the U.S. Open is to have the PBA lay down a tougher oil pattern in narrower fairways & strengthen the greenside gutters. Got it...