Erin Hills too Easy?

[ricklinens]

I liked the manicured fescue, very appealing for a US Open.

[stickner]

I think the governing bodies of all professional sports have a responsibility to the great players of the past to protect the sanctity of their records. Not to ensure that they're never broken, only to ensure that, if they're broken, it is by a greater effort on the part of the individual athlete and not by a substantial alteration of the field of play.

 

I can only assume then you will be lobbying strongly for re-instating hickory shafts and gutta percha balls as the only equipment options a player has? If not, why not?

[SadTrombone]

I think the governing bodies of all professional sports have a responsibility to the great players of the past to protect the sanctity of their records. Not to ensure that they're never broken, only to ensure that, if they're broken, it is by a greater effort on the part of the individual athlete and not by a substantial alteration of the field of play.

 

I can only assume then you will be lobbying strongly for re-instating hickory shafts and gutta percha balls as the only equipment options a player has? If not, why not?

 

Folks, this is a perfect example of the "false dilemma/all or nothing" fallacy. It doesn't have to be all one way (gutty/hickory) or all the other way (900cc/nuclear balls).

[new2g0lf]

Erin Hills was not US Open worthy, it's a nice course and overall I enjoyed the tournament but it didn't feel like a US Open. Fairways needs to be narrowed, especially in key landing areas. The fairways were giving up way too much roll, there's no point of having an 8000 yard course if the course hands the longest golfers an extra 50 yards on every tee shot and there's no penalty for bombing the ball.

 

The greens aren't as well protected as other US Open courses, there are no water hazards, the bunkers were player friendly, minimal OB and while the fescue was penal it wasn't nearly as tough to get out of as they hyped it up to be in the pre-tournament discussions. The weather made the greens receptive to approach shots and while the pin placements were challenging the lower stimp of the greens took made putting easier than expected.

 

If they had wind like yesterday morning all tournament and the course was dry I think the scores would have been much higher but the weather took most of the teeth out of the course and that's why it didn't play like a US Open course.

[jtitleist12]

As soon as players started complaining about the long fescue and posting videos of it on social media, the USGA's knee jerk reaction was to cut it back and have the course play less penal. They didn't want carnage and the inevitability of looking bad again like the last two years so they went the other way and they still can't win.

 

I'm good with it. Plus the next 3 years' venues will be classic U.S. Open tracks.

 

- Josh

[ago33]

Did EH recognize the best player?

 

I think it did. There was some forgiveness but if you were off the punishment was severe as not only the golfer was struggling to make bogey but his competitor had a realistic chance at making a birdie.

 

Also by making it longer and wider, it takes away from the short and strait hitter. Something the USGA it says it doesn't like.

[MountainGoat]

I though it was an excellent venue, and I think the USGA will return there before they go back to Chambers Bay.

[gioguy21]

Erin Hills was not US Open worthy, it's a nice course and overall I enjoyed the tournament but it didn't feel like a US Open. Fairways needs to be narrowed, especially in key landing areas. The fairways were giving up way too much roll, there's no point of having an 8000 yard course if the course hands the longest golfers an extra 50 yards on every tee shot and there's no penalty for bombing the ball.

 

The greens aren't as well protected as other US Open courses, there are no water hazards, the bunkers were player friendly, minimal OB and while the fescue was penal it wasn't nearly as tough to get out of as they hyped it up to be in the pre-tournament discussions. The weather made the greens receptive to approach shots and while the pin placements were challenging the lower stimp of the greens took made putting easier than expected.

 

If they had wind like yesterday morning all tournament and the course was dry I think the scores would have been much higher but the weather took most of the teeth out of the course and that's why it didn't play like a US Open course.

a) you don't need water to make a course hard

b) narrowing the fairways in this case would be hard due to the undulations/slopes in the fairways.

c) bunkers aren't hard? dillusional.

 

the ONLY reason this wasn't a tough course this week was wind. look at the scores on sunday -- a course that's wet (receptive greens) with no wind is as get-able as it comes, regardless of length. only time wet REALLY comes into play is when the ball plugs in the fairway -- which didn't happen here.

[Man_O_War]

Erin Hills was not US Open worthy, it's a nice course and overall I enjoyed the tournament but it didn't feel like a US Open. Fairways needs to be narrowed, especially in key landing areas. The fairways were giving up way too much roll, there's no point of having an 8000 yard course if the course hands the longest golfers an extra 50 yards on every tee shot and there's no penalty for bombing the ball.

 

The greens aren't as well protected as other US Open courses, there are no water hazards, the bunkers were player friendly, minimal OB and while the fescue was penal it wasn't nearly as tough to get out of as they hyped it up to be in the pre-tournament discussions. The weather made the greens receptive to approach shots and while the pin placements were challenging the lower stimp of the greens took made putting easier than expected.

 

If they had wind like yesterday morning all tournament and the course was dry I think the scores would have been much higher but the weather took most of the teeth out of the course and that's why it didn't play like a US Open course.

a) you don't need water to make a course hard

b) narrowing the fairways in this case would be hard due to the undulations/slopes in the fairways.

c) bunkers aren't hard? dillusional.

 

the ONLY reason this wasn't a tough course this week was wind. look at the scores on sunday -- a course that's wet (receptive greens) with no wind is as get-able as it comes, regardless of length. only time wet REALLY comes into play is when the ball plugs in the fairway -- which didn't happen here.

 

you cannot design a US Open course subject to the elements to protect score...that's the other OPEN!!! US Opens are historically beefy with our without rain, nuclear snow etc. Winged Foot much?

[Blitzer55]

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?

 

It depends on the eye of the beholder. I think it wasn't extremely difficult, but it wasn't easy either. If you miss the fairway and hit the green in a wrong zone, you're screwed. You have to admit, it makes it challenging and fun to watch, even if Koepka made it to -16.

[Hawkeye77]

Would so many be complaining if the final round leaderboard had been stacked with the likes of DJ, Rory, Jordan, Jason, Sergio and Phil? Doubtful, imo.

 

Imo, the course played great but the set-up needed a little tweaking. The USGA gave the players two relatively short par 4's. If they were going to do that, they could've turned two of the par 5's into long par 4's. Scoring would've been lower and the pitchforks could've been put away.

 

Of course not, they'd be happy the leaderboard allowed them to whine about Jordan's pace of play, DJs issues, Rory skipping the Olympics, Sergio spitting and Phil beating Tiger on occasion - too many opportunities lost for the same old threads.

 

 

Coming from the guy with 10,000 posts. Ohhhh-kay. Lol

 

Yep, and none of them wasted ripping on players' character like the National Enquirer/trying to figure out who is most hated/gossiping about this and that.

 

 

Oh, like you did with me?

 

Sorry, didn't know you were a tour player. My mistake. Please start a thread about your experiences, most on here would love to listen to them.

[stickner]

I think the governing bodies of all professional sports have a responsibility to the great players of the past to protect the sanctity of their records. Not to ensure that they're never broken, only to ensure that, if they're broken, it is by a greater effort on the part of the individual athlete and not by a substantial alteration of the field of play.

 

I can only assume then you will be lobbying strongly for re-instating hickory shafts and gutta percha balls as the only equipment options a player has? If not, why not?

 

Folks, this is a perfect example of the "false dilemma/all or nothing" fallacy. It doesn't have to be all one way (gutty/hickory) or all the other way (900cc/nuclear balls).

 

No. It's meant to point out how things change over time. I can guarantee you that back in the day some ornery curmudgeon belly-ached for years about the introduction of "modern" steel shafts , "modern" golf balls and "modern" agronomy and how it ruined the game.

[stickner]

Did EH recognize the best player?

 

I think it did. There was some forgiveness but if you were off the punishment was severe as not only the golfer was struggling to make bogey but his competitor had a realistic chance at making a birdie.

 

Also by making it longer and wider, it takes away from the short and strait hitter. Something the USGA it says it doesn't like.

 

Every single tournament, major or not, recognizes the best player that week on that course.

[stickner]

30 to 40 years+ ago green speeds were a fraction of what they are today. See below.

 

-----------------------------------------

In his Editor's Letter in the October 2013 issue, Golf Digest editor-in-chief Jerry Tarde notes that when the USGA adopted the Stimpmeter in 1978, it sent teams around the country to measure green speeds. The USGA wanted to know what golf courses were doing with their greens, and what the typical speeds were; 581 courses were tested.

The results? Augusta National Golf Club was under 8; Merion was closer to 6. Those numbers would seem ridiculously slow in today's faster-greens-are-a-badge-of-honor environment.

Tarde's article included the speeds of greens at some of the top U.S. courses in that 1978 survey:

• Harbour Town, 5-1 (5 feet, 1 inch)
  

 

 

• Congressional, 6-4
  
• Merion, 6-4
  
• Pinehurst No. 2, 6-10
  
• Pebble Beach, 7-2
  
• Shinnecock Hills, 7-2
  
• Pine Valley, 7-4
  
• Winged Foot, 7-5
  
• Cypress Point, 7-8
  
• Medinah, 7-8
  
• Augusta National, 7-11
  
• Oakland Hills, 8-5
  
• Oakmont, 9-8
  

https://www.thoughtco.com/how-much-have-green-speeds-increased-in-golf-1563536

[Z1ggy16]

I thought I also heard that the grass on the fairways here is different? Ie, it was more like a velvet that grew perfectly vertical, as opposed to bentgrass that would grow at an angle. Thus, these fairways were more "forgiving". Heard this on Friday during the USGA stream, so not sure who said it.

[sekrah]

Erin Hills was not US Open worthy, it's a nice course and overall I enjoyed the tournament but it didn't feel like a US Open. Fairways needs to be narrowed, especially in key landing areas. The fairways were giving up way too much roll, there's no point of having an 8000 yard course if the course hands the longest golfers an extra 50 yards on every tee shot and there's no penalty for bombing the ball.

 

The greens aren't as well protected as other US Open courses, there are no water hazards, the bunkers were player friendly, minimal OB and while the fescue was penal it wasn't nearly as tough to get out of as they hyped it up to be in the pre-tournament discussions. The weather made the greens receptive to approach shots and while the pin placements were challenging the lower stimp of the greens took made putting easier than expected.

 

If they had wind like yesterday morning all tournament and the course was dry I think the scores would have been much higher but the weather took most of the teeth out of the course and that's why it didn't play like a US Open course.

a) you don't need water to make a course hard

b) narrowing the fairways in this case would be hard due to the undulations/slopes in the fairways.

c) bunkers aren't hard? dillusional.

 

the ONLY reason this wasn't a tough course this week was wind. look at the scores on sunday -- a course that's wet (receptive greens) with no wind is as get-able as it comes, regardless of length. only time wet REALLY comes into play is when the ball plugs in the fairway -- which didn't happen here.

 

you cannot design a US Open course subject to the elements to protect score...that's the other OPEN!!! US Opens are historically beefy with our without rain, nuclear snow etc. Winged Foot much?

 

 

Mind boggling that there's people who think weather is the only weapon out there to make courses tough. Erin Hills is a baby course.

[jslane57]

30 to 40 years+ ago green speeds were a fraction of what they are today. See below.

 

-----------------------------------------

In his Editor's Letter in the October 2013 issue, Golf Digest editor-in-chief Jerry Tarde notes that when the USGA adopted the Stimpmeter in 1978, it sent teams around the country to measure green speeds. The USGA wanted to know what golf courses were doing with their greens, and what the typical speeds were; 581 courses were tested.

The results? Augusta National Golf Club was under 8; Merion was closer to 6. Those numbers would seem ridiculously slow in today's faster-greens-are-a-badge-of-honor environment.

Tarde's article included the speeds of greens at some of the top U.S. courses in that 1978 survey:

• Harbour Town, 5-1 (5 feet, 1 inch)
  

 

• Congressional, 6-4
  
• Merion, 6-4
  
• Pinehurst No. 2, 6-10
  
• Pebble Beach, 7-2
  
• Shinnecock Hills, 7-2
  
• Pine Valley, 7-4
  
• Winged Foot, 7-5
  
• Cypress Point, 7-8
  
• Medinah, 7-8
  
• Augusta National, 7-11
  
• Oakland Hills, 8-5
  
• Oakmont, 9-8
  

https://www.thoughtc...in-golf-1563536

 

Are the fast greens of today making championship golf easier or harder? At first glance you'd think faster greens = harder greens, I'm not so sure this is the case...

[gvogel]

I though it was an excellent venue, and I think the USGA will return there before they go back to Chambers Bay.

 

I agree. The course was set up so that the best players in the world could hit driver. There was some penalty - I remember that Brian Harmon needed to make something happen yesterday on the back nine, and he hit one into the high stuff when he couldn't afford to.

 

The USGA will go back to classic courses, and the best players will go back to hitting irons off the tee. I prefer Erin Hills - with some tweaks.

[SadTrombone]

I think the governing bodies of all professional sports have a responsibility to the great players of the past to protect the sanctity of their records. Not to ensure that they're never broken, only to ensure that, if they're broken, it is by a greater effort on the part of the individual athlete and not by a substantial alteration of the field of play.

 

I can only assume then you will be lobbying strongly for re-instating hickory shafts and gutta percha balls as the only equipment options a player has? If not, why not?

 

Folks, this is a perfect example of the "false dilemma/all or nothing" fallacy. It doesn't have to be all one way (gutty/hickory) or all the other way (900cc/nuclear balls).

 

No. It's meant to point out how things change over time. I can guarantee you that back in the day some ornery curmudgeon belly-ached for years about the introduction of "modern" steel shafts , "modern" golf balls and "modern" agronomy and how it ruined the game.

 

And there's the counterfactual fallacy.

[jola]

I like the US Open coueses set up with the scoring average closer to par.Look how Merion was set up.But I was interested yesterday with so many within striking distance but ended a little dull.

[nicoy3k]

My main gripe was that missing the fairway by a mile was less penal than missing it by a few yards. Trampled down areas are a joke. Brooks should have lost his ball or at least struggled to get a bogey when he hooked his tee shot miles left, instead his ball was nestled on a trampled area and he made birdie. Joke.

[Shilgy]

I think the governing bodies of all professional sports have a responsibility to the great players of the past to protect the sanctity of their records. Not to ensure that they're never broken, only to ensure that, if they're broken, it is by a greater effort on the part of the individual athlete and not by a substantial alteration of the field of play.

Is there a sole arbiter of the "greater effort"? But you are correct. The field of play has been made more difficult over the years which has been balanced out by improved equipment. Bottom line though is that all records are made to be broken.

 

Folks-we cannot compare scoring records from different events over the years and act as if they represent a players dominance over another. Just because one player shot better than another at an Open at Oakmont does not necessarily make one player better. Course set up, weather, and circumstances along with equipment changes make any comparison futile.

[bermuda]

A couple of things that stand out to me are that way in the past, the US Open courses had ankle-deep rough right beside the green. Now, those areas are mowed lower than the fairways. Also, the fairways are mowed out to the bunkers, and Mike Davis has said they do this because they are "fairway bunkers" and mowing out to them brings them more into play. But to me when the rough isn't 6 inches deep right off the fairway and green, it's not a US Open setup.

[helper_monkey]

Easy to fix. Narrow the fairways by 20 yards and the winning score is single digit. I doubt you see fw's this wide again.

 

There's an even easier fix...If the USGA played this as a par 70 (like they tend to do for the US Open) then the winning score is -8. Ta-Da!! Single digits under par.

[BEND OF THE RIVER GC]

Sunday remedy. Put the tees as far back as possible, tuck pins

 

Or start using a "tourney ball", soon the courses will be 8500 yards, which is stupid.

[cardoustie]

Merion tamed the pro's with rough and pinched fairways

 

Not sure why the US Open has had a run of British Open sort of tracks (Erin Hills and Chambers Bay)

 

Length cannot stop the modern golfer

[Shilgy]

A couple of things that stand out to me are that way in the past, the US Open courses had ankle-deep rough right beside the green. Now, those areas are mowed lower than the fairways. Also, the fairways are mowed out to the bunkers, and Mike Davis has said they do this because they are "fairway bunkers" and mowing out to them brings them more into play. But to me when the rough isn't 6 inches deep right off the fairway and green, it's not a US Open setup.

 

At some designs like Erin Hills and Pinehurst the rough next to the greens would make it easier-not more difficult-as ball would not run down the shaved banks. Delicate chips/pitches off extremely tight lies are every bit as difficult, if not more, than short gouges from greenside rough.

PS 1960 US Open...of of the most revered Opens in history.....does not appear to have the rough you speak of. And it was my first search. They were not at all what people recall as a general rule.

[stickner]

I think the governing bodies of all professional sports have a responsibility to the great players of the past to protect the sanctity of their records. Not to ensure that they're never broken, only to ensure that, if they're broken, it is by a greater effort on the part of the individual athlete and not by a substantial alteration of the field of play.

 

I can only assume then you will be lobbying strongly for re-instating hickory shafts and gutta percha balls as the only equipment options a player has? If not, why not?

 

Folks, this is a perfect example of the "false dilemma/all or nothing" fallacy. It doesn't have to be all one way (gutty/hickory) or all the other way (900cc/nuclear balls).

 

No. It's meant to point out how things change over time. I can guarantee you that back in the day some ornery curmudgeon belly-ached for years about the introduction of "modern" steel shafts , "modern" golf balls and "modern" agronomy and how it ruined the game.

 

And there's the counterfactual fallacy.

 

You put the Sad in SadTrombone... What fallacy is that?

[Outdors21]

Merion tamed the pro's with rough and pinched fairways

 

Not sure why the US Open has had a run of British Open sort of tracks (Erin Hills and Chambers Bay)

 

Length cannot stop the modern golfer

 

Length when the fairways are that wide, you mean.

 

 

[QuigleyDU]

when the top three golfers in the world all miss the cut, how can you say this was a terrible event? i rather enjoyed it. Are there a few changes that can be done? sure, but that can be said for every event.