Erin Hills too Easy?

[stickner]

Just feels a bit like the USGA is throwing a bone to the players this year. I believe they thought it would play "easier" but didn't expect the weather to lay down quite like it has.

With the upcoming venues I would expect to see winning scores come back to the -5 to +5 range. If not then the USGA is going to have a brand issue in calling themselves the sternest test of golf, i.e. they'll just be the June version of the PGA Championship.

 

Throwing a bone? The wind has been unusually calm and the course is very wet. If the wind was even moderate with dryer conditions the leader would be somewhere between 3 and 6 under going into the final round.

[sekrah]

most likely 14 under will win the US Open. I think it's time for a US Open venue that actually proves difficult. I'm not sure why setting up an Open for Par being a winning is such a bad thing?

 

The opposite side of that coin is:

 

"I'm not sure why setting up an Open for under par being the winning score is such a bad thing".

 

For all the traditionalists out there that jump on that statement, why don't you go back to playing hickory shafts and gutta percha balls? The correct answer is that things change over time.

 

 

The correct answer is that the FOUR majors should be unique to each other, not the same crap with a different name in a different month. Terrible Open, the USGA should be ashamed. Why don't they just hold the Milwaukee Open here next week, and the PGA Championship the week after that? Save a fortune on player and media travel.

[glk]

Just feels a bit like the USGA is throwing a bone to the players this year. I believe they thought it would play "easier" but didn't expect the weather to lay down quite like it has.

With the upcoming venues I would expect to see winning scores come back to the -5 to +5 range. If not then the USGA is going to have a brand issue in calling themselves the sternest test of golf, i.e. they'll just be the June version of the PGA Championship.

 

Throwing a bone? The wind has been unusually calm and the course is very wet. If the wind was even moderate with dryer conditions the leader would be somewhere between 3 and 6 under going into the final round.

 

The course is not very wet. Soft but not wet. The winds have been moderate. Wide fairways and green complexes that are not severe relative to past US Open venues lead to low scores for these guys. Point being they have had a rocky go with player relations these past few years with the broomstick ruling, Chambers, and last year rules decision. Nothing wrong with the USGA trying to make nice but you ignored my point that about them not expecting the conditions to be like this - but anyone who frequents Whisky in June would know that it can be stormy and soft - I ran an outing there for over a decade in June and we typically dodges storms. It's just the typical weather pattern that tstorms are frequent in June. Now play it in August and I think you can could the conditions they were planning on.

 

But the usga brand is based on a stern test. Redefining brand hasn't work well for companies in general. See coke. Usga does not have competition for the open but they do compete for prestige and attract members.

[Bigarch]

Just feels a bit like the USGA is throwing a bone to the players this year. I believe they thought it would play "easier" but didn't expect the weather to lay down quite like it has.

With the upcoming venues I would expect to see winning scores come back to the -5 to +5 range. If not then the USGA is going to have a brand issue in calling themselves the sternest test of golf, i.e. they'll just be the June version of the PGA Championship.

 

Throwing a bone? The wind has been unusually calm and the course is very wet. If the wind was even moderate with dryer conditions the leader would be somewhere between 3 and 6 under going into the final round.

 

Agreed

 

The USGA likes to control everything and the one thing they can't control is mother nature. I think they planned for dry, windy conditions and didn't get them until Sunday. Had they gotten that condition for all 4 days, the narrative would be totally different right now.

[Ajit]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

[sekrah]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

 

 

Do you watch golf with a blindfold on? The U.S. Open has been a putting contest for 54 holes. Not even remotely similar to Oakmont. Wake up from your coma.

[Ajit]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

 

 

Do you watch golf with a blindfold on? The U.S. Open has been a putting contest for 54 holes. Not even remotely similar to Oakmont. Wake up from your coma.

 

Why don't you just pretend this course is a par 70 like the USGA do at the other US Open venues? You'd enjoy it much more.

[bullie76]

If the winds blow like they were early this morning.....you won't see super low scoring today. Going to be interesting.

[kizell]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

 

You and I are clearly not watching the same tournament

 

Great us open venue? Maybe, it is after all a beautiful course.

 

Great us open test? Gimme a break. That notion is completely absurd.

 

[Ajit]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

 

You and I are clearly not watching the same tournament

 

Great us open venue? Maybe, it is after all a beautiful course.

 

Great us open test? Gimme a break. That notion is completely absurd.

 

That's because you're clearly obsessed with the notion of "par" as if it means something. If the two shorter par 5s were called par 4s would this be a better test of golf? Nope. Would the players be hitting different shots? Nope. Would people like you think that it this was a better test of the leader was at -6? Yes.

[new2g0lf]

Too bad the wind will die down when the leaders hit the course, all this means is the chances of someone catching the leaders are minimal.

[kizell]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

 

You and I are clearly not watching the same tournament

 

Great us open venue? Maybe, it is after all a beautiful course.

 

Great us open test? Gimme a break. That notion is completely absurd.

 

That's because you're clearly obsessed with the notion of "par" as if it means something. If the two shorter par 5s were called par 4s would this be a better test of golf? Nope. Would the players be hitting different shots? Nope. Would people like you think that it this was a better test of the leader was at -6? Yes.

 

In all of my bashing I have never taken the stance of "old man par." I am very aware, having played and watched golf all my life, that a player can go low and the course still be a great test. Tiger Woods and Martin Kaymer have proven this.

 

If the 2 par 5 were par 4s this would still be a lousy major level test because the fairways are wide open. It's not so much about the number as it is the approach to the course. Players are not stressing over shots with big fairways and no hazards. The caddies simply give a number and they play. No stress involved.

 

It should not be too difficult to see that an easy course dimishes pressure. The players are clearly not distressed about much through 3 rounds.

[bscinstnct]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

 

You and I are clearly not watching the same tournament

 

Great us open venue? Maybe, it is after all a beautiful course.

 

Great us open test? Gimme a break. That notion is completely absurd.

 

That's because you're clearly obsessed with the notion of "par" as if it means something. If the two shorter par 5s were called par 4s would this be a better test of golf? Nope. Would the players be hitting different shots? Nope. Would people like you think that it this was a better test of the leader was at -6? Yes.

 

In all of my bashing I have never taken the stance of "old man par." I am very aware, having played and watched golf all my life, that a player can go low and the course still be a great test. Tiger Woods and Martin Kaymer have proven this.

 

If the 2 par 5 were par 4s this would still be a lousy major level test because the fairways are wide open. It's not so much about the number as it is the approach to the course. Players are not stressing over shots with big fairways and no hazards. The caddies simply give a number and they play. No stress involved.

 

It should not be too difficult to see that an easy course dimishes pressure. The players are clearly not distressed about much through 3 rounds.

 

Im curious about your thoughts on this post I made on the nobilo thread (edited)

 

 

8 of the top 12* in the world mc be because they couldnt hit the fairway. There is no bomb and wedge out there since offline is dead.

 

The leaders are playing *US Open* golf. Position off the tee, laying back with fw wood/iron if necessary. Strong long approaches (its the longest open in history) and greenside play.

 

This has been all about how to approach the course. Thats why the top owgr are gone.

[ScratchyDawg]

I guess some guys take pleasure in watching guys who are way better than them struggle. I don't care if it's a difficult course or not. I just like it to be exciting. This is shaping up to be an exciting Sunday!

[kizell]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

 

You and I are clearly not watching the same tournament

 

Great us open venue? Maybe, it is after all a beautiful course.

 

Great us open test? Gimme a break. That notion is completely absurd.

 

That's because you're clearly obsessed with the notion of "par" as if it means something. If the two shorter par 5s were called par 4s would this be a better test of golf? Nope. Would the players be hitting different shots? Nope. Would people like you think that it this was a better test of the leader was at -6? Yes.

 

In all of my bashing I have never taken the stance of "old man par." I am very aware, having played and watched golf all my life, that a player can go low and the course still be a great test. Tiger Woods and Martin Kaymer have proven this.

 

If the 2 par 5 were par 4s this would still be a lousy major level test because the fairways are wide open. It's not so much about the number as it is the approach to the course. Players are not stressing over shots with big fairways and no hazards. The caddies simply give a number and they play. No stress involved.

 

It should not be too difficult to see that an easy course dimishes pressure. The players are clearly not distressed about much through 3 rounds.

 

Im curious about your thoughts on this post I made on the nobilo thread (edited)

 

 

8 of the top 12* in the world mc be because they couldnt hit the fairway. There is no bomb and wedge out there since offline is dead.

 

The leaders are playing *US Open* golf. Position off the tee, laying back with fw wood/iron if necessary. Strong long approaches (its the longest open in history) and greenside play.

 

This has been all about how to approach the course. Thats why the top owgr are gone.

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Frank Nobilo has always been a guy who sucks up to the players point of view. I confess to not watching him all the time, but this point of view from him was predictable.

 

It is true that the top rated players in the world could not hit the fairway. But what exactly is the point of this argument if 40+ guys are under par? Is Frank suggesting that because the top tier players missed the fairway they are not easy to hit? The collective scoring and lack of stress on players faces tells a totally different story. Just because good players miss a cut doesn't mean a course is difficult any more than it means a course is easy if an amateur wins. Frank is simply appeasing the USGA and the players. It's a weak argument overall.

 

The approach to this course has been pick a target and get it go from the teebox. And from the fairway it has been get a yardage, pick a club, line up and fire.

That's not us open golf traditionally. That's regular pga tour golf IMO.

[bscinstnct]

^

 

Just for the record, that was my post ; )

 

We disagree on a few things but appreciate the reply.

[kg92lefty]

Just because the scorecard is 7,800 doesn't mean the course plays to that. It's playing a lot less than that.

[Ajit]

 

You and I are clearly not watching the same tournament

 

Great us open venue? Maybe, it is after all a beautiful course.

 

Great us open test? Gimme a break. That notion is completely absurd.

 

That's because you're clearly obsessed with the notion of "par" as if it means something. If the two shorter par 5s were called par 4s would this be a better test of golf? Nope. Would the players be hitting different shots? Nope. Would people like you think that it this was a better test of the leader was at -6? Yes.

 

In all of my bashing I have never taken the stance of "old man par." I am very aware, having played and watched golf all my life, that a player can go low and the course still be a great test. Tiger Woods and Martin Kaymer have proven this.

 

If the 2 par 5 were par 4s this would still be a lousy major level test because the fairways are wide open. It's not so much about the number as it is the approach to the course. Players are not stressing over shots with big fairways and no hazards. The caddies simply give a number and they play. No stress involved.

 

It should not be too difficult to see that an easy course dimishes pressure. The players are clearly not distressed about much through 3 rounds.

 

Im curious about your thoughts on this post I made on the nobilo thread (edited)

 

 

8 of the top 12* in the world mc be because they couldnt hit the fairway. There is no bomb and wedge out there since offline is dead.

 

The leaders are playing *US Open* golf. Position off the tee, laying back with fw wood/iron if necessary. Strong long approaches (its the longest open in history) and greenside play.

 

This has been all about how to approach the course. Thats why the top owgr are gone.

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Frank Nobilo has always been a guy who sucks up to the players point of view. I confess to not watching him all the time, but this point of view from him was predictable.

 

It is true that the top rated players in the world could not hit the fairway. But what exactly is the point of this argument if 40+ guys are under par? Is Frank suggesting that because the top tier players missed the fairway they are not easy to hit? The collective scoring and lack of stress on players faces tells a totally different story. Just because good players miss a cut doesn't mean a course is difficult any more than it means a course is easy if an amateur wins. Frank is simply appeasing the USGA and the players. It's a weak argument overall.

 

The approach to this course has been pick a target and get it go from the teebox. And from the fairway it has been get a yardage, pick a club, line up and fire.

That's not us open golf traditionally. That's regular pga tour golf IMO.

 

On the one hand you say par is not the issue but then you complain about 40 guys being under par. Call Erin Hills a par 70 and you only have a dozen or so guys under par and the leader on -6 and no one is complaining.

 

At a regular tour venue you have guys smashing driver with relatively little consequence and wedging it in from the rough/bunkers, here there is none of that. If you're in a fairway bunker you're not getting to the green, if you're in the fescue you're not getting it to the green and might be in really bad trouble, even from the normal rough you're not going to have any real control of your approach. At the same time, the course doesn't take driver out the hands of players like other US Open venues can do.

[Skydiver22]

Erin Hills is not too easy. The equipment is too good.

shoe's are too comfortable

 

More truth there than you will ever know... Me and my buddies played Erin last year and carried our bags. All of us had our shoes off on the back patio after the round enjoying a pint... the convo definently involved the feet taking a beating. :)

[Spongerob]

Number 9 is simply brutal. There should never be a hole set up where a solid iron shot to the middle of the green results in an uphill, downwind flop shot over a bunker to a short sided pin. WTF! All that's missing is the laughing clown face.

[kizell]

That's because you're clearly obsessed with the notion of "par" as if it means something. If the two shorter par 5s were

 

The 40+ guys under par mark was not about the course difficulty, but about Frank's suggestion that the fairways are harder to hit than they appear. If that were true, then, AS A COLLECTIVE, there could not be 40+ guys under par because Erin hills is a tough second shot course.

 

You see there could still be someone at -12 playing great, but the collective number of players would be much lower.

 

Furthermore, the course will be harder today, but I do expect 1 player to play great and finish -13. At the same time I also think we will finish with less than 30 under par today. This means the only thing truly protecting the course this week is wind.

 

Not a great us open test if wind is the only thing making it us open-like difficult.

 

It all comes back to my main point. Wide fairways = low scores, mediocre test.

[USAF Retired E7]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone is satisfied by anything. Some complain the course is too easy, or the announcers are terrible, or they complain about how Holly Sanders looks, etc. It's a compelling tournament on a beautiful golf course...I find it most enjoyable.

 

I'm enjoying the golf, and always like to see Holly Sonders :)

[kizell]

I just think the USGA committed a tragedy this week.

 

Erin Hills looks awesome. 11 or so years in the making. I really think that if the USGA narrowed the fairways by 15 yards and kept everything the same this could have been an awesome open combined with an awesome test.

[SonnyD]

I stop reading when some of these guys say they wouldn't take Holly for a spin. Standards are way too high, there isn't a golf course in the world that would satisfy these farts or find something to complain about.

[Jasonic]

I really can't believe how much stupid there is in this thread.

 

The leader after 3 round is on 204 shots. The leader at this stage last year at the mighty Oakmont was on 203. Relabeling par 5s as par 4s does not make a course a true test of golf or a good US Open venue.

 

Having wider fairways allows players to be aggressive off the tee but there is more than enough danger to punish the bomb and gougers. Good shots are rewarded and bad shots punished. As a result we're seeing the best ballstrikers this week at the top of the leaderboard and that's why this is an excellent US Open venue.

 

 

Do you watch golf with a blindfold on? The U.S. Open has been a putting contest for 54 holes. Not even remotely similar to Oakmont. Wake up from your coma.

 

Again, it's a driving accuracy event not putting. Pretty obvious

 

I stop reading when some of these guys say they wouldn't take Holly for a spin. Standards are way too high, there isn't a golf course in the world that would satisfy these farts or find something to complain about.

 

Because I'm sure she's willing to have you shlubs

[SonnyD]

 

I stop reading when some of these guys say they wouldn't take Holly for a spin. Standards are way too high, there isn't a golf course in the world that would satisfy these farts or find something to complain about.

 

Because I'm sure she's willing to have you shlubs

 

That's not the point. But hey, point well taken.

[Jasonic]

 

I stop reading when some of these guys say they wouldn't take Holly for a spin. Standards are way too high, there isn't a golf course in the world that would satisfy these farts or find something to complain about.

 

Because I'm sure she's willing to have you shlubs

 

That's not the point. But hey, point well taken.

 

It always makes me laugh when guys are like, "Gisele? Meh I wouldn't kick her out of bed." Yea ok guy

[SadTrombone]

I stop reading when some of these guys say they wouldn't take Holly for a spin. Standards are way too high, there isn't a golf course in the world that would satisfy these farts or find something to complain about.

 

Because I'm sure she's willing to have you shlubs

 

That's not the point. But hey, point well taken.

 

It always makes me laugh when guys are like, "Gisele? Meh I wouldn't kick her out of bed." Yea ok guy

 

Some of us just have standards.

[bscinstnct]

"I need a *really* pretty face"

 

-Newman

[SoCalTitleist]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone is satisfied by anything. Some complain the course is too easy, or the announcers are terrible, or they complain about how Holly Sanders looks, etc. It's a compelling tournament on a beautiful golf course...I find it most enjoyable.

Every tournament same story. Coverage sucks , announcers suck , holly is fugly, Blair is too skinny,golf channel sucks , these guys are worse than women , never satisfied .