When Did 280 Stop Winning US Opens?

[noahdavis_7]

Also, here's an idea. If they want the course to actually play 8000 yards, let the fairways grow up a tad longer to decrease 30-40 yard rollouts.

[North Texas]

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

 

It certainly was a brilliant display of ball striking. But I would also give the Fairways Hit stat an asterisk simply because they probably played the widest fairways ever played in a U.S. Open. Heck only one player on tour is averaging more than 73% for the year and at the U.S. Open the entire field AVERAGED 73%! On tour the Fairways Hit average is 60.5% which means it was 20% easier to hit the fairway at the U.S. Open than it was at your everyday tour stop. It should, without question, be just the opposite for the U.S. Open. Like someone said previously, playing these fairways was like hitting on a driving range with a green at the end of it.

 

Now Koepka hitting 86% Greens in Regulation is definitely a WOW statistic.

[North Texas]

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.

Merion and Shinnecock in particular have been tricked up on US Open visits. They needed to syringe the greens in the middle of the round just to keep Shinnecock playable and the grass alive. Merion at 6800 is not a test for the elite players these days without a tricked out setup.

 

I was curious how many other times they had to do this during a round. Anyone have any other examples?

[heavy_hitter]

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

 

It certainly was a brilliant display of ball striking. But I would also give the Fairways Hit stat an asterisk simply because they probably played the widest fairways ever played in a U.S. Open. Heck only one player on tour is averaging more than 73% for the year and at the U.S. Open the entire field AVERAGED 73%! On tour the Fairways Hit average is 60.5% which means it was 20% easier to hit the fairway at the U.S. Open than it was at your everyday tour stop. It should, without question, be just the opposite for the U.S. Open. Like someone said previously, playing these fairways was like hitting on a driving range with a green at the end of it.

 

Now Koepka hitting 86% Greens in Regulation is definitely a WOW statistic.

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

 

It should, without question, be just the opposite for the U.S. Open.

 

 

Seriously, why? I question it.

[johnseg]

I understand the idea that the harder the conditions the more likely that the cream rises to the top. I looked at the OWGR the week before the US Open for the last 20 championships. Numerous #1's won and Michael Campbell at 80 was the lowest ranked.

 

1-10 10

11-30 3

31-50 5

>50 2

 

So being in the Top 10 is an advantage but no real difference between 11-80.

 

 

The last PGA's show:

 

1-10 10

11-30 5

31-50 1

>50 4

 

the funny thing with these is of the 4 ranked lower than 50, 3 were over 100 with Micheel (no surprise on WRX) being the worst at 169.

 

No time to hit the other two majors.

 

So does the US Open lend itself to have "better Champions?" Likely the answer is no more than any tournament. Top 10 guys win more often hence their rankings.

[MNGolfer03]

+1 on making the fairways a bit longer in the tooth.

 

I would take this idea a bit further.

 

If the USGA wants to test the players, who says you need to have uniform conditions throughout the entire course. Have some fairways pinched in on the easier holes and widen them on some of the more difficult ones. Make some have a bit longer length grass, might get some fliers from the fairway. Roll some greens more than others, im sure that would draw the ire of the players and cause scores to go up if thats what everyone wants. Look what the USGA moving the tee up 100 yards on 16 at Olympic did to Furyk, cost him the win.

[Shilgy]

<p>+1 on making the fairways a bit longer in the tooth.    </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would take this idea a bit further.  If the USGA wants to test the players, who says you need to have uniform conditions throughout the entire course.  Have some fairways pinched in on the easier holes and widen them on some of the more difficult ones. Make some have a bit longer length grass, might get some fliers from the fairway. Roll some greens more than others, im sure that would draw the ire of the players and cause scores to go up if that's what everyone wants.    Look what the USGA moving the tee up 100 yards on 16 at Olympic did to Furyk, cost him the win.   </p>

 

 

<p>+1 on making the fairways a bit longer in the tooth.    </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I would take this idea a bit further.  If the USGA wants to test the players, who says you need to have uniform conditions throughout the entire course.  Have some fairways pinched in on the easier holes and widen them on some of the more difficult ones. Make some have a bit longer length grass, might get some fliers from the fairway. Roll some greens more than others, im sure that would draw the ire of the players and cause scores to go up if that's what everyone wants.    Look what the USGA moving the tee up 100 yards on 16 at Olympic did to Furyk, cost him the win.   </p>

I don't like to call anyone names so I will just say that Furyk cost himself the win at the Olympic Open. He admits he did not adjust his thinking and hit an awful shot. But most importantly to your post moving tees is in no way analogous to your other suggestions. Playing with fairway cut length and green speeds would be a complete farce. Fairway width is already varied by hole-nothing new there.

[North Texas]

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

 

It certainly was a brilliant display of ball striking. But I would also give the Fairways Hit stat an asterisk simply because they probably played the widest fairways ever played in a U.S. Open. Heck only one player on tour is averaging more than 73% for the year and at the U.S. Open the entire field AVERAGED 73%! On tour the Fairways Hit average is 60.5% which means it was 20% easier to hit the fairway at the U.S. Open than it was at your everyday tour stop. It should, without question, be just the opposite for the U.S. Open. Like someone said previously, playing these fairways was like hitting on a driving range with a green at the end of it.

 

Now Koepka hitting 86% Greens in Regulation is definitely a WOW statistic.

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

 

It should, without question, be just the opposite for the U.S. Open.

 

 

Seriously, why? I question it.

 

Let's start with it simply being the philosophy that the USGA has for this championship.

 

 

U.S. Open Championship Philosophy

 

 

 

By the United States Golf Association

The USGA selects venues for the U.S. Open that rank among the most challenging courses in the United States. We intend that the U.S. Open prove the most rigorous examination of golfers. A U.S. Open course should test all forms of shot making, mental tenacity, and physical endurance under conditions of extreme pressure found only at the highest levels of championship golf.

[jonsnow]

Furyk lost that Open at Olympic because he was endorsing 5 Hour Energy when it should have been 6 Hour Energy drinks.

[heavy_hitter]

By the United States Golf Association

The USGA selects venues for the U.S. Open that rank among the most challenging courses in the United States. We intend that the U.S. Open prove the most rigorous examination of golfers. A U.S. Open course should test all forms of shot making, mental tenacity, and physical endurance under conditions of extreme pressure found only at the highest levels of championship golf.

 

 

No where does that say the course should make the players play at par.

[North Texas]

By the United States Golf Association

The USGA selects venues for the U.S. Open that rank among the most challenging courses in the United States. We intend that the U.S. Open prove the most rigorous examination of golfers. A U.S. Open course should test all forms of shot making, mental tenacity, and physical endurance under conditions of extreme pressure found only at the highest levels of championship golf.

 

 

No where does that say the course should make the players play at par.

 

Did someone say it did?

[Shilgy]

By the United States Golf Association

The USGA selects venues for the U.S. Open that rank among the most challenging courses in the United States. We intend that the U.S. Open prove the most rigorous examination of golfers. A U.S. Open course should test all forms of shot making, mental tenacity, and physical endurance under conditions of extreme pressure found only at the highest levels of championship golf.

 

 

No where does that say the course should make the players play at par.

 

Did someone say it did?

Quite a few posts on this and the Erin Hills too easy thread have said so, yes.

[HoganApexBlades]

Here's a simple thought. Take at least 2 of the Par 5's and make them Par 4's. Par goes from 72 to 70 and then the -16 becomes -8. Majority of the people compromise and the course is no longer a subject of ridicule.

[Dave230]

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.

 

3rd to 10th at the US Open at Erin Hills was much better than at Troon. Mickelson and Stenson were just that good. Stenson won with figures above the average as good as Tiger at Pebble in 2000! That's how good he was last year.

 

The equivalent in a traditional US Open, even given for more generous conditions for Mickelson and Stenson's side of the draw would be something like -8 Stenson, -5 Mickelson, +4 3rd place. If Koepka shot -16 but 3rd place was -4, I don't think many would be complaining, it would just be an out of this world performance.

[evoviiiyou]

This debate boggles my mind. Winning is winning. All the players play the same course for four days. Winner is the winner...score is irrelevant.

[Shilgy]

My prediction from earlier stands. The days of the US Open destroying the host course for months is over. Setups will be difficult but not an overly onerous farce. There may be years where the weather dictates that near par is the winning score but I do not expect it to be the norm. It will still be a stern test but it will be a test that a guy playing well can pass, not a mandatory fail.

[evoviiiyou]

My prediction from earlier stands. The days of the US Open destroying the host course for months is over. Setups will be difficult but not an overly onerous farce. There may be years where the weather dictates that near par is the winning score but I do not expect it to be the norm. It will still be a stern test but it will be a test that a guy playing well can pass, not a mandatory fail.

 

Agreed

[Chazb]

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.

I guess we could make all courses the same and just have a putting contest.

[Ignatius Reilly]

This debate boggles my mind. Winning is winning. All the players play the same course for four days. Winner is the winner...score is irrelevant.

 

Gotta agree with that. You can't try to identify the "best golfer" in a major, and then start to make excuses why the best ones left Friday night.

 

Will Koepka win another major? I don't know. But he played the best of any golfer over those 4 days, that's undeniable.

 

+1 on making the fairways a bit longer in the tooth.

 

I would take this idea a bit further.

 

If the USGA wants to test the players, who says you need to have uniform conditions throughout the entire course. Have some fairways pinched in on the easier holes and widen them on some of the more difficult ones. Make some have a bit longer length grass, might get some fliers from the fairway. Roll some greens more than others, im sure that would draw the ire of the players and cause scores to go up if thats what everyone wants. Look what the USGA moving the tee up 100 yards on 16 at Olympic did to Furyk, cost him the win.

 

Moving the tee up seemed to work in an odd way.

 

Having each green at a different speed is no test of golf at all. It's a circus act.

 

Here's a simple thought. Take at least 2 of the Par 5's and make them Par 4's. Par goes from 72 to 70 and then the -16 becomes -8. Majority of the people compromise and the course is no longer a subject of ridicule.

While this has been done other years at other courses....

 

at Erin Hills, the shorter 2 of the par 5s (on each 9) were 588 and 605 yds.

 

Despite how far the guys hit, and how the yardage gets reduced when you cut corners, those don't sound like par 4 yardages to me.

 

605. Par 4? No.

[scores]

Courses with BIG greens they will tear it up!!

[theboypinoy]

Courses with BIG greens they will tear it up!!

 

Heck even as a average guy, courses with giant greens are easier for me to score well on. It's much easier to lag put than try get up-and-down on tiny greens with thick rough

[playa]

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.

This x 1000. The US Open's trademark was it being the sternest test the players would face all year. To soften it to a regular tour stop like the last few years takes away the essence of what the US Open is all about. I refuse to believe the players didn't relish the challenge of pitting their game against old man par in a very angry mood. They all know going in what they are going to get, and a major should be tougher than other tournaments. I would bet for multiple major champions like tiger, jack, Watson etc some of the most satisying moments of their careers would be winning US Opens on courses with real teeth. I also personally think you don't need birdies and red numbers to have an exciting major. Augusta being the exception as that course is built for back nine charges, I would like to see all majors follow the traditional US Open formula.

[playa]

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.

I guess we could make all courses the same and just have a putting contest.

They have that already. It's called the PGA Tour.

[HoganApexBlades]

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.

I guess we could make all courses the same and just have a putting contest.

 

"Drive for show, putt for dough"...it seems like a new 2 club rule could be put into effect...ok, maybe 3 for you hybrid fanatics.

[HoganApexBlades]

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.

I guess we could make all courses the same and just have a putting contest.

They have that already. It's called the PGA Tour.

 

And it's become a JOKE!!!

[sekrah]

My prediction from earlier stands. The days of the US Open destroying the host course for months is over. Setups will be difficult but not an overly onerous farce. There may be years where the weather dictates that near par is the winning score but I do not expect it to be the norm. It will still be a stern test but it will be a test that a guy playing well can pass, not a mandatory fail.

 

Letting the rough grow a little deeper and wider into the fairway is not "destroying a course for months". Making missing fairways and greens more penal is not rocket science people.

[SwooshLT]

Smaller greens and 25-32 yd fairways with go/no go rough is a challenge.... elevated and undulating greens that reject all the best quality shots will play with the patience of most..... controlling your ball SHOULD be apart of the equation imho.

 

Have a venue with more doglegs and are tree lined is my picture of an Open. Call me ol skool but shot shaping mastery and perseverance sprinkle in grit with a side of luck!

[ERUddOH]

Smaller greens and 25-32 yd fairways with go/no go rough is a challenge.... elevated and undulating greens that reject all the best quality shots will play with the patience of most..... controlling your ball SHOULD be apart of the equation imho.

 

Have a venue with more doglegs and are tree lined is my picture of an Open. Call me ol skool but shot shaping mastery and perseverance sprinkle in grit with a side of luck!

 

Amen! Elevated greens, deep bunkers, parkland course, thick rough. Pro's crying that it's just not fair! That's the US Open. It should be a contrast to the rest of the season, not more of the same.

[Shilgy]

My prediction from earlier stands. The days of the US Open destroying the host course for months is over. Setups will be difficult but not an overly onerous farce. There may be years where the weather dictates that near par is the winning score but I do not expect it to be the norm. It will still be a stern test but it will be a test that a guy playing well can pass, not a mandatory fail.

 

Letting the rough grow a little deeper and wider into the fairway is not "destroying a course for months". Making missing fairways and greens more penal is not rocket science people.

The"destroying" may only apply to extreme cases like Shinnecock. As I recall that took many many months to recover. But even growing the rough and pinching fairways takes a couple months to properly grow and groom. And members need to play their course in the meantime. Then the inconveniences of infrastructure on the course and the trampling of the grounds in the rough and crosswalks. Believe me it's not just a one week deal for host courses. Even for regular tour events.

[sekrah]

My prediction from earlier stands. The days of the US Open destroying the host course for months is over. Setups will be difficult but not an overly onerous farce. There may be years where the weather dictates that near par is the winning score but I do not expect it to be the norm. It will still be a stern test but it will be a test that a guy playing well can pass, not a mandatory fail.

 

Letting the rough grow a little deeper and wider into the fairway is not "destroying a course for months". Making missing fairways and greens more penal is not rocket science people.

The"destroying" may only apply to extreme cases like Shinnecock. As I recall that took many many months to recover. But even growing the rough and pinching fairways takes a couple months to properly grow and groom. And members need to play their course in the meantime. Then the inconveniences of infrastructure on the course and the trampling of the grounds in the rough and crosswalks. Believe me it's not just a one week deal for host courses. Even for regular tour events.

 

Well let's just stop holding PGA Tour events because members are upset their course is a little different for a few weeks. It's so sad that there's apparently no other clubs near these guys that don't hold Tour events, so they can have a consistent course each time they wake up in the morning. I have to stop, I need to get another box of tissues.

 

Good gravy!