Can The USGA Ever Compete With The Masters, And If So, How?

[Forged4ever]

Ok, Barney has his opinions and views......

 

http://www.golfwrx.com/365726/the-masters-will-always-be-no-1-unless-the-usga-does-something-bold/

 

What are yours?

 

Have a great week :)

 

All the Best,

RP

[b.helts]

I could go for a "tour ball".

 

But not for just one event. I think Barney "shanked" it.

[knock it close]

I could go for a tour ball too, but I don't think the ball is the biggest issue in courses not being viable for the US Open. The main issue with the shorter, old-school courses is that they are too small for all the infrastructure and fans. Look at how well Merion held up, and although they said they were concerned with its length I will say with a 99% confidence that was just an excuse cause they weren't sure if they could squeeze enough money out of it.

[b.helts]

I could go for a tour ball too, but I don't think the ball is the biggest issue in courses not being viable for the US Open. The main issue with the shorter, old-school courses is that they are too small for all the infrastructure and fans. Look at how well Merion held up, and although they said they were concerned with its length I will say with a 99% confidence that was just an excuse cause they weren't sure if they could squeeze enough money out of it.

 

Great post! All of the ancillary "requirements" for a tour event, especially a major, would immediately eliminate most of the great golf courses Barney alludes to.

[knock it close]

I could go for a tour ball too, but I don't think the ball is the biggest issue in courses not being viable for the US Open. The main issue with the shorter, old-school courses is that they are too small for all the infrastructure and fans. Look at how well Merion held up, and although they said they were concerned with its length I will say with a 99% confidence that was just an excuse cause they weren't sure if they could squeeze enough money out of it.

 

Great post! All of the ancillary "requirements" for a tour event, especially a major, would immediately eliminate most of the great golf courses Barney alludes to.

Yea exactly. So with the US Open going back to the Country Club is there any truly great course that has been used for US Open's before that is now not considered? Not that I can think of atleast, there are some good ones such as Oak Hill and Balty that are now PGA venues instead of US Open but I don't think that as much to do with them being "obsolete"

[cardoustie]

Total shankapottami for Barney (not surprisingly a dinosaur name)

 

Nothing will be The Masters ... I don't care what the USGA does .. .totally different events

[Rangeballz]

A tour ball? Meh, OK, give it a shot, but I'm not enamored with the idea, unless it is used week in and week out on tour so guys can get used to it.

 

There's a lot of talk of older venues being now obsolete. True, but the ball is not solely to blame. So much money is made off of merchandising, corporate hospitality, suites/boxes, etc. and these things take a lot of real estate. Is the USGA willing to forego that revenue? I think not.

 

The USGA gets absolutely apoplectic if anyone shoots under par. ANGC is fine with a 10 under winning score (this with no rough), and a 32 on the back nine on Sunday by the winner is almost required. The USGA would have fits. I'm not saying make it like the PGA (a birdie-fest by comparison), but having a winner under par isn't all bad.

 

I applaud the USGA for trying new venues, but instead of playing them the way they were designed they immediately have to trick them up.

 

And then there is timing. What would you rather watch, the Masters with 75 and sunny, azaleas, and, God forbid, green grass, or the US Open played in June, often in high temp and humidity conditions, with the course browning out and the field sweating their way to 6 hour rounds?

 

I myself think it's a losing battle....

[cmusic]

I think two areas that the Masters prevail is that:

 

1) the Masters tournament is held on the same course so we can compare different players though out different eras. The course has changed over the years but to most people, this is true pro golf.

 

and

 

2) ANGC is more aligned with what a golf course looks like to the normal person than the dried out courses that have held the US Open the last two years. I know that Pinehurst #2 was conditioned to look like it originally did when new, but Chambers Bay looked like a dirt field with shag carpet greens.

[R Hagan]

I read Barney's article while I was sitting in traffic today. I like where he's going but I don't think changing the golf ball just for the pros is a good idea. Just like the anchor ban, I don't think bifurcation of the rules is a good idea. I would be all for the USGA putting stricter limits on the golf ball across the board but as far as the U.S. Open goes, the USGA should just keep playing for second.

[UCBananaboy]

The short answer is no.

 

The USGA can't replicate the history at Augusta. It is simply impossible for them to do that when The Masters is fielded at the same venue every single year. Diehards can easily remember the iconic shots, the hole-by-hole of the course, and the amazing theater that has unfolded over the many decades. That's something you can't do when the US Open is moving from course to course each year and the viewer is presented with a whole new track.

 

I understand the appeal of getting the US Open to Masters-level, but accepting that it is just as good an alternative Major should suffice for the powers-that-be.

 

As for the unified ball, it would certainly be interesting. Frankly, I would rather see the players have to use regressed equipment and the USGA remain on some of the "traditional" courses we've seen. The PGA can then be the Championship contested on younger courses (eg Chambers Bay, Whistling Straits, etc) and it would give a healthy mix between the 4 majors.

[b.helts]

I think there is a big something to be said for people's familiarity with Augusta National. Even if for a vast majority of people that familiarity comes from television.

 

We are all able to know how difficult a shot a player has from past years and when someone pulls it off, or fails, it interacts with our own experience over the years. That's a big deal. We are more invested in the tournament and more engaged with the players as they compete at a place most of us will never see.

 

That history and familiarity is unbeatable. I'd say that is one of the reasons places like Pebble Beach are so revered as US Open venues.

 

Edit: UCBananaboy beat me to it.

[widow-maker]

The USGA let the genie out of the bottle as far as the ball is concerned. Pretty tough to shove the genie back into the bottle. The ball companies will challenge them in court. There is big money involved and all of these companies developed the ball according to USGA standards. The USGA just didn't show enough foresight. They needed to nip the ball equation in the bud back in the mid 90's.

 

That being said, why would you try to make the US Open something it's not. It's not the Masters. It doesn't have to strive to be the Masters. Just be the best US Open that you can be. You're known for giving us the toughest venues, with narrow fairways and lightening fast greens. Do that. But, don't make it unfair. And don't try to tell us that we don't know what we're looking at. You don't have to burn out the greens and fairways. You don't have to make the course unplayable. Just identify the very best player by putting forth a very tough challenge. The moments will happen on their own because of the magnitude of the event... that history created. History created by players, not the USGA. The USGA isn't the story, so don't try to be.

[Nard_S]

I am:

 

110% in favor of dialing the ball back to 3 piece wound balata standards.

110% in favor of dialing back volume of drivers.

110% in favor of doing it for all PGA tournaments.

110% in favor of letting amateurs use whatever their heart desires.

110% sure it would make for better golf.

 

For me, as driving distances get longer, The Masters gets more boring.

[jll62]

The idea of a US Open ball is ludicrous. In the 80's and into the mid-90's, the US Open had a reputation as an event dominated by short, accurate players due to the harsh setups that were used. This resulted in champions like Scott Simpson, Andy North, Tom Kite, etc. Aside from Curtis Strange's repeat, it was a pretty boring time for US Open golf IMO.

 

The best players in the world today hit the ball really, really far. If you want TV ratings, the last thing you want to do is make it less likely that your event will be won by your star power. An old-school, traditional golf fan might like a change that could bring a Pavin-like champion back into the mix, but the casual TV golf fans will not tune in.

 

While it's true that The Masters has a huge leg up on the other events due to the event being held on the same course, there's an aspirational aspect to The Masters that is impossible to replicate. At a time when half of the country is just starting to play again in the spring, seeing Augusta National in pristine condition just gets the mind racing and ready to play golf. Add to that the fact that most people know this is their only chance to see the course since they'll likely never set foot on the grounds and you end up with a very special tournament.

 

I don't have a great answer of what to do, but I think the USGA should at least consider to moving to a rotation of well known Open courses as an effort to establish some sort of consistency and expectation amongst golf fans. Oakmont this year will be great, but Chambers Bay last year and Erin Hills next year? Does anyone really get excited about them unless you played the golf course or live in the area? I doubt it. They'll use the "grow the game" argument as to why they like to move around, but I don't think that holds water.

[MtlJeff]

The USGA's track records of making decisions....hmmm...dial back the grooves (made no difference)....eliminate the long putter (Adam Scott, Bill Haas still playing well)...

 

Maybe they should stop making changes for a while. A US Open ball would be a comically bad idea. And any change in the ball for amateurs would be easily their worst decision to date. 99.9% of people have enough problems with the current ball, and the USGA's own friggin message is to tee it forward since golf is hard enough....so making a shorter ball would seem kind of idiotic to pair with that message.

 

As others have said , shorter courses aren't always "obsolete"...that's a message that is proliferated by people who sometimes have agendas or are campaigning to have balls dialed back simply for reasons of vanity (those pesky kids are hitting it so far!)....a major part of the reason why many of these courses are not used is that they cannot host the same size galleries as courses with a lot more space

 

A well designed and protected 7000yd course can still host a US Open

[caniac6]

Apples can't be oranges. These two tournaments couldn't be more different.

[BLLDWG23]

I'm not a fan of the tour ball deal etc. If you are going to dial back balls then just dial everything back. Dial balls back, drivers back, etc... and do it for everyone and every thing. The issue I have always had with the U.S Open is their obsession with protecting PAR. That is all they care about in that setup, and honestly for me it doesn't translate well for the casual golf fan or people in general watching TV. I've said it before, If I wanted to watch people shoot 4 and 5 over and struggle to get around a course I'd watch my friends hack it around the local course. Now does that mean I want them shooting 30 under? No, but what is wrong with a 10 or so under score??? Some of these old courses can be set up where that happen.

[MarkFromTheUK]

Most of the courses the US Open go to are great. However, the idiots at the USGA insist on tricking them up and are obsessed with getting a winning score of par. They are also obsessed with making par a 70 regardless of course.

 

The great thing about Augusta is that it's perfect risk/reward golf, where you can make a ton of birdies if you're brave enough to try. The US Open is invariably a turgid, battle of attrition, which makes even the best courses in the USA look incredibly dull. No wonder people switch off.

 

It's a simple solution... Set up the courses so they reward good golf, and don't blow you out of contention if you make a relatively small mistake. Also, Four par 5s to maximise scoring opportunity, rather than having only two, which they seem obsessed by.

[Afraid2goLow]

If you look at the US Open's ever since 2008 Tiger v Rocco, they pretty much have all been quite the snoozefest of a major outside of Spieth and Dustin last year.

 

2009 Glover winning at bethpage i believe on a monday over Ricky Barnes = Mega Spare

2010 McDowell winning at Pebble over Dustin after DJs collapse = pretty unmemorable

2011 Rory winning by 100 shots over Day who was second place by a lot of shots = boring tournament

2012 Webb Simpson back dooring the tourny after mcdowell and furyk choked, and the only memorable thing was the birdman at the trophy presentation is all you need to know about this being one of the worst majors since the Michael Campbell and Ben Curtis era.

2013 Rose winning a really close US Open, overall not bad 3rd best major of 13 behind Scott at August and Phil at Murifield

2014 TV presentation looked terrible I know its Pinehurst but the average fan thought it looked worse than their Muni plus Kaymer runaway winner made it possible the most spare major in the last 10 years.

2015 Spieth over DJ hands down the best US open since 2008 but like i just proved thats not saying much at all.

 

So why does the US Open seem to be rather spare when compared to Augusta? Seems pretty obvious even the smallest golf fans recognize the back 9 holes of augusta, US open doesnt seem to produce playoffs Augusta has had 3 since 2008. Also am i the only one who doesnt enjoy watching these players shoot +3 and +4 over? I feel like the average sports fan who watches golf 3-4 times a year (one of those always being Augusta) wants to see birdies and eagles. We want to see green grass and not what we witnessed at Pinehurst and Chambers, even the Donald agreed with me in 2014 on this issue.

 

 

If it were up to me just play it at Torrey Pines (or Pebble) every year at least for the next 10-15 years (maybe throw in Firestone, Bay Hill, and Murifield in there too) because these courses have a certain individual who has won on each 5+ times

[patrick421]

I don't have much to add as I think the tour ball idea is frankly dumb and it will never happen for obvious reasons. My one thought though from a viewer perspective is that Merion was fantastic to watch, such a great golf course. Courses like that are my favorite, the classic american parkland style courses that just scream golf and golf shots. Merion, Philly cricket club, etc etc those are where the US Open should be held not contrived idiocy like Chambers Bay.

[alittleoverpar]

I love the Masters and the US Open equally, but for different reasons.......but I am a golf nerd! (cool)

[knock it close]

Realistically the US Open could just rotate through Shin, Oakmont, Merion, and maybe Winged Foot. You could talk me into pebble too.

[MarkFromTheUK]

Never, ever, should it return to Olympic...Even if there's a nuclear war and the only place unaffected is San Francisco.

[lumberman2462]

I'm on the bandwagon of "The USGA Makes Dumb Decisions...." crowd.

 

This Tour Ball idea isn't going to make the huge difference people might think. Are we gonna roll it back to the Maxfli HT or Titleist Tour Balata?

 

The current crop of PGA Tour Players will still launch that thing a long way. They're just bigger/stronger/better athletes compared to prior generations...

 

The US Open is never gonna be the Masters....

[Muirfield Willie]

USGA should:

1. Stop burning out the courses for sake of a score.

2. Persimmons/Plywood, forged muscleback blades, no groove rule for equipment only.

3. Make a shorter flying ball.

4. Have a rotation of Pebble Beach, Shinnecock, Merion, Oakmont, and Brookline only. PGA Championship can have the rest.

5. No more changing a hole from a par 5 to a par 4 which goes with number 1 on my list. The hole was designed as a par 5, play it as such.

6. For god sakes let Phil finally win one!

 

I know none of this will happen especially changing the equipment. Have to cater to certain manufacturers right (I'm talking to you company whose name starts and ends with a 'T'). A rotation similar to what The (British) Open has would be great. I mean they basically built a course for the US Open, are there not enough great courses that you have to manufacture one? With all that said the US Open is still my favorite major followed closely by The (British) Open. The Masters has become too politically correct, or maybe it always has been, I don't know.

[Liquid_A_45]

Southern Hills in Tulsa, OK

[fairways4life]

I think two areas that the Masters prevail is that:

 

1) the Masters tournament is held on the same course so we can compare different players though out different eras. The course has changed over the years but to most people, this is true pro golf.

 

and

 

2) ANGC is more aligned with what a golf course looks like to the normal person than the dried out courses that have held the US Open the last two years. I know that Pinehurst #2 was conditioned to look like it originally did when new, but Chambers Bay looked like a dirt field with shag carpet greens.

 

You must be playing some different courses than the rest of us.

[knock it close]

USGA should:

1. Stop burning out the courses for sake of a score.

2. Persimmons/Plywood, forged muscleback blades, no groove rule for equipment only.

3. Make a shorter flying ball.

4. Have a rotation of Pebble Beach, Shinnecock, Merion, Oakmont, and Brookline only. PGA Championship can have the rest.

5. No more changing a hole from a par 5 to a par 4 which goes with number 1 on my list. The hole was designed as a par 5, play it as such.

6. For god sakes let Phil finally win one!

 

I know none of this will happen especially changing the equipment. Have to cater to certain manufacturers right (I'm talking to you company whose name starts and ends with a 'T'). A rotation similar to what The (British) Open has would be great. I mean they basically built a course for the US Open, are there not enough great courses that you have to manufacture one? With all that said the US Open is still my favorite major followed closely by The (British) Open. The Masters has become too politically correct, or maybe it always has been, I don't know.

Yes to 4. I don't really care about changing the par of the hole one way or the other though, as par should be it's irrelevant to what the hole is.

[mizmatt]

Having attended both venues,

I can remember everything about my Masters Sunday, the US Open,

Not so much.

[Shilgy]

I am:

 

110% in favor of dialing the ball back to 3 piece wound balata standards.

110% in favor of dialing back volume of drivers.

110% in favor of doing it for all PGA tournaments.

110% in favor of letting amateurs use whatever their heart desires.

110% sure it would make for better golf.

 

For me, as driving distances get longer, The Masters gets more boring.

And people would still think that the reason the pros are so good, and so long, is that they have those special "tour issued" clubs-and balls. I don't really care if the roll back balls and clubs but it must be for everyone imo. Not just pros.