Erin Hills too Easy?

[ratspros]

How is being only 4 strokes easier then Oakmont, 3 shots easier then Chambers Bay and 1 shot harder then Pinehurst make Erin Hills too easy?

 

Man you people are obsessed with Par. Was Oakmont on the verge of being to east? Must've been with only being 1 stroke a round harder.

[Jack Pearsall]

A noted by others, fairways were too wide and the weather was too friendly...basically guys just bombed it...kind of a recurring problem with pro golf, driver wedge mostly, sometimes driver seven iron...it just seems the balls go too far, turning courses into jokes...probably just JP...but it gets pretty old, have to say...

[glk]

How is being only 4 strokes easier then Oakmont, 3 shots easier then Chambers Bay and 1 shot harder then Pinehurst make Erin Hills too easy?

 

Man you people are obsessed with Par. Was Oakmont on the verge of being to east? Must've been with only being 1 stroke a round harder.

Bad comparison. Try the last par 72 US Open at Pebble Beach in 1992 - winning score there was 285 versus 272 at EH.

[redfirebird08]

7 guys finished -10 or better. In the entire history of the U.S. Open up to that point, only 2 guys had ever finished -10 or better...and that was in two incredible blowout victories by Tiger and Rory.

 

Was it too easy? Heck yes!

[ClintDagger]

US Open courses are like obscenity, I can't describe it but I know it when I see it. Erin Hills is a fine course and would make a great PGA Championship track but it doesn't feel like a US Open course. Neither did Chambers Bay. I understand that some courses are becoming obsolete and the USGA wants to get some new blood in the rotation but maybe a 5 or 6 course rotation for the US Open isn't the worst thing in the world.

[heavy_hitter]

It was refreshing to see a US Open won at -16. I can't stand the same USGA setups year after year. That is the only week all year long someone plays golf that way. Erin Hills easy? Who cares? Everyone has to play the same course.

[SadTrombone]

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?

 

When you attack someone rather than their position, or rather than attempt to support your own position, that's ad hominem.

[BreakingPar]

Harrison Ford could land his plane in those fairways, that's how wide they were.

[glk]

It was refreshing to see a US Open won at -16. I can't stand the same USGA setups year after year. That is the only week all year long someone plays golf that way. Erin Hills easy? Who cares? Everyone has to play the same course.

But the USGA brand is based on the sternest test in golf. Each major presents a unique test - I for one don't care to see 2 PGA Championships each year.

[jonsnow]

Harrison Ford could land his plane in those fairways, that's how wide they were.

 

You mean crash his plane in those fairways?

 

Course didn't look easy to me. If the greens were a bit firmer & balls weren't stopping more quickly than you normally see in a U.S. Open, don't think the winning score would have been anywhere approaching -16.

[Shilgy]

Sounds like some want the USGA to build their own course and have the US Open there every year. Based on the posts the features would be.......

 

- about 8000 yards

-soft fairways with Superball tm substrata so they don't get too much roll off the tee but still bounce wildly into the rough. About 18 yards wide should be enough.

-rock hard greens about 200 square feet should be big enough. Some will be 15 on the stimp and some 8 as there is a varying belief about fast of slow being more difficult.

-shin high rough around the greens and to edge of fairways

-uphill on every hole so the the big hitters don't get the downhill advantage

- waste deep bunkers(but not pot bunkers as they are for The Open)

 

What have I missed? The idea of course is to embarrass and strike fear into the best in the world. Not to identify the best. Yes the common method of course setup had some great winners. Jack Tiger and Trevino for instance. But it also had it's Dick Mayers and Orville Moodys. Perhaps that setup was not that great at identifying the best player but selecting winners based on playing styles. If an Andy North can win three times on tour and two of them are US Opens perhaps the setup is not identifying the best but merely the straightest?

[SadTrombone]

Harrison Ford could land his plane in those fairways, that's how wide they were.

 

You mean crash his plane in those fairways?

 

That's kind of a low blow. The engine quit, it's not like he just balled it up and said "time for a quick bucket?".

[braincramp52]

I'm not a Mike Davis fan but the USGA caught a bit of bad luck with all the rain they had. Had it not rained so much the fairways and greens would have been nasty firm and fast and it would been a much different course. You can't control mother nature.

[sekrah]

It was refreshing to see a US Open won at -16. I can't stand the same USGA setups year after year. That is the only week all year long someone plays golf that way. Erin Hills easy? Who cares? Everyone has to play the same course.

 

The other 30 PGA tour events each year that are won at -16 are not enough for you?

 

This was a piece of s***.

 

I'm not a Mike Davis fan but the USGA caught a bit of bad luck with all the rain they had. Had it not rained so much the fairways and greens would have been nasty firm and fast and it would been a much different course. You can't control mother nature.

 

Sorry, weather wouldn't have changed much at all.. maybe -10 or -9. Everyone said the 15mph wind on Sunday would slow guys down. It did nothing. This was an easy US Open setup. There's no polishing this turd. Like others have said, many US Opens get drenched. They don't score like this.

[jonsnow]

Harrison Ford could land his plane in those fairways, that's how wide they were.

 

You mean crash his plane in those fairways?

 

That's kind of a low blow. The engine quit, it's not like he just balled it up and said "time for a quick bucket?".

 

Guess he should have taken the Millenium Falcon up that day...

[braincramp52]

It was refreshing to see a US Open won at -16. I can't stand the same USGA setups year after year. That is the only week all year long someone plays golf that way. Erin Hills easy? Who cares? Everyone has to play the same course.

 

The other 30 PGA tour events each year that are won at -16 are not enough for you?

 

This was a piece of s***.

 

I'm not a Mike Davis fan but the USGA caught a bit of bad luck with all the rain they had. Had it not rained so much the fairways and greens would have been nasty firm and fast and it would been a much different course. You can't control mother nature.

 

Sorry, weather wouldn't have changed much at all.. maybe -10 or -9. Everyone said the 15mph wind on Sunday would slow guys down. It did nothing. This was an easy US Open setup. There's no polishing this turd. Like others have said, many US Opens get drenched. They don't score like this.

 

6 strokes is a bunch imo.

[gioguy21]

Harrison Ford could land his plane in those fairways, that's how wide they were.

 

You mean crash his plane in those fairways?

 

That's kind of a low blow. The engine quit, it's not like he just balled it up and said "time for a quick bucket?".

 

Guess he should have taken the Millenium Falcon up that day...

i'm still second guessing the identity of the blimp pilot.

 

'get off my blimp...'

[sekrah]

It was refreshing to see a US Open won at -16. I can't stand the same USGA setups year after year. That is the only week all year long someone plays golf that way. Erin Hills easy? Who cares? Everyone has to play the same course.

 

The other 30 PGA tour events each year that are won at -16 are not enough for you?

 

This was a piece of s***.

 

I'm not a Mike Davis fan but the USGA caught a bit of bad luck with all the rain they had. Had it not rained so much the fairways and greens would have been nasty firm and fast and it would been a much different course. You can't control mother nature.

 

Sorry, weather wouldn't have changed much at all.. maybe -10 or -9. Everyone said the 15mph wind on Sunday would slow guys down. It did nothing. This was an easy US Open setup. There's no polishing this turd. Like others have said, many US Opens get drenched. They don't score like this.

 

6 strokes is a bunch imo.

 

Wouldn't have changed it into an exciting course. There's still few hazards actually in play to the pros. Erin Hills is a snoozer.

[redfirebird08]

I'm not a Mike Davis fan but the USGA caught a bit of bad luck with all the rain they had. Had it not rained so much the fairways and greens would have been nasty firm and fast and it would been a much different course. You can't control mother nature.

 

That's not a great excuse. Bethpage in 2002 and 2009 had a ton of rain. Winning scores were -3 and -4. The extremely wide fairways at Erin Hills played a huge factor along with the weather.

[PGArox]

How is being only 4 strokes easier then Oakmont, 3 shots easier then Chambers Bay and 1 shot harder then Pinehurst make Erin Hills too easy?

 

Man you people are obsessed with Par. Was Oakmont on the verge of being to east? Must've been with only being 1 stroke a round harder.

Bad comparison. Try the last par 72 US Open at Pebble Beach in 1992 - winning score there was 285 versus 272 at EH.

 

Exactly. And one must be obtuse to not get it. If a U.S. Open course is setup as a par 72, and they want par to be the benchmark for scoring, then the final winning score should be ... HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS! ... 288. See how that works?

 

So let's follow this line of thought. If this year's final score was, say, 280 ... and a previous year's (on a par 70 course) was also 280, which layout allowed for more birdies? It's really not that difficult to understand, folks, even though some people on this board seem to have a problem with it.

 

The fact is - par is very much a significant concept. It is built into golf, and always has been. When golf course architects build their designs they assign a number of par to every hole. A par 3 is meant to be played in ... you guessed it ... three shots. If it generally plays in 2.85 shots it is considered easy, and if it is generally played in 3.5 shots it is considered difficult. This stuff is elementary for people who actually understand golf and have a brain.

[glk]

Sounds like some want the USGA to build their own course and have the US Open there every year. Based on the posts the features would be.......

 

- about 8000 yards

-soft fairways with Superball tm substrata so they don't get too much roll off the tee but still bounce wildly into the rough. About 18 yards wide should be enough.

-rock hard greens about 200 square feet should be big enough. Some will be 15 on the stimp and some 8 as there is a varying belief about fast of slow being more difficult.

-shin high rough around the greens and to edge of fairways

-uphill on every hole so the the big hitters don't get the downhill advantage

- waste deep bunkers(but not pot bunkers as they are for The Open)

 

What have I missed? The idea of course is to embarrass and strike fear into the best in the world. Not to identify the best. Yes the common method of course setup had some great winners. Jack Tiger and Trevino for instance. But it also had it's Dick Mayers and Orville Moodys. Perhaps that setup was not that great at identifying the best player but selecting winners based on playing styles. If an Andy North can win three times on tour and two of them are US Opens perhaps the setup is not identifying the best but merely the straightest?

That's what I like about the majors. It takes the ability to win on venues that require different styles/skills. As I noted I don't care to see 2 PGA championships. The Master's is a 2nd shot course and challenge in scrambling/putting. The US Open requires precision in driving and approach shot as well as scrambling and putting. The Open is a test of ability to shot make and play high and low while dealing with the elements of wind and rain. The PGA well . . . it's glory's last stand. LOL. Actually it's more of Tour stop and unfortunately TV money probably won't allow it but I'd love to see it go back to match play - play qualifier stroke then cut field to 32 or 16 for matches.

[gvogel]

Wisconsin Open I will say that I enjoy the new venues. I get tired of the same ole rotation...

As an Aussie, why do they seem to only play Opens at SoCal or northern venues? I always thought there were great courses in Texas and Florida but we never see them host the Open. Is it weather related?

 

They have played 3 US Opens in Texas: 1941 at Colonial (Fort Worth), 1952 at the Northwood Club (Dallas), and 1969 at Champions (Houston). My guess is that the USGA hasn't been back to Texas because they feel there are better courses for the championship elsewhere.

[Joe85]

Sounds like some want the USGA to build their own course and have the US Open there every year. Based on the posts the features would be.......

 

- about 8000 yards

-soft fairways with Superball tm substrata so they don't get too much roll off the tee but still bounce wildly into the rough. About 18 yards wide should be enough.

-rock hard greens about 200 square feet should be big enough. Some will be 15 on the stimp and some 8 as there is a varying belief about fast of slow being more difficult.

-shin high rough around the greens and to edge of fairways

-uphill on every hole so the the big hitters don't get the downhill advantage

- waste deep bunkers(but not pot bunkers as they are for The Open)

 

What have I missed? The idea of course is to embarrass and strike fear into the best in the world. Not to identify the best. Yes the common method of course setup had some great winners. Jack Tiger and Trevino for instance. But it also had it's Dick Mayers and Orville Moodys. Perhaps that setup was not that great at identifying the best player but selecting winners based on playing styles. If an Andy North can win three times on tour and two of them are US Opens perhaps the setup is not identifying the best but merely the straightest?

That's what I like about the majors. It takes the ability to win on venues that require different styles/skills. As I noted I don't care to see 2 PGA championships. The Master's is a 2nd shot course and challenge in scrambling/putting. The US Open requires precision in driving and approach shot as well as scrambling and putting. The Open is a test of ability to shot make and play high and low while dealing with the elements of wind and rain. The PGA well . . . it's glory's last stand. LOL. Actually it's more of Tour stop and unfortunately TV money probably won't allow it but I'd love to see it go back to match play - play qualifier stroke then cut field to 32 or 16 for matches.

 

 

Totally agree with this one hundred percent. The PGA should go back to its roots and differentiate it in that way. Would totally be better.

 

 

Although usually their claim to fame is "top 100 golfers in the world"/"strongest field".

[sekrah]

How is being only 4 strokes easier then Oakmont, 3 shots easier then Chambers Bay and 1 shot harder then Pinehurst make Erin Hills too easy?

 

Man you people are obsessed with Par. Was Oakmont on the verge of being to east? Must've been with only being 1 stroke a round harder.

Bad comparison. Try the last par 72 US Open at Pebble Beach in 1992 - winning score there was 285 versus 272 at EH.

 

Exactly. And one must be obtuse to not get it. If a U.S. Open course is setup as a par 72, and they want par to be the benchmark for scoring, then the final winning score should be ... HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS! ... 288. See how that works?

 

So let's follow this line of thought. If this year's final score was, say, 280 ... and a previous year's (on a par 70 course) was also 280, which layout allowed for more birdies? It's really not that difficult to understand, folks, even though some people on this board seem to have a problem with it.

 

The fact is - par is very much a significant concept. It is built into golf, and always has been. When golf course architects build their designs they assign a number of par to every hole. A par 3 is meant to be played in ... you guessed it ... three shots. If it generally plays in 2.85 shots it is considered easy, and if it is generally played in 3.5 shots it is considered difficult. This stuff is elementary for people who actually understand golf and have a brain.

 

 

Can someone sticky this post? I swear people forget what the definition of golf is. The course is either easy or it isn't. Erin Hills is easy. For U.S. Open standards, it's the easiest course in the tournament's history.

 

Sounds like some want the USGA to build their own course and have the US Open there every year. Based on the posts the features would be.......

 

- about 8000 yards

-soft fairways with Superball tm substrata so they don't get too much roll off the tee but still bounce wildly into the rough. About 18 yards wide should be enough.

-rock hard greens about 200 square feet should be big enough. Some will be 15 on the stimp and some 8 as there is a varying belief about fast of slow being more difficult.

-shin high rough around the greens and to edge of fairways

-uphill on every hole so the the big hitters don't get the downhill advantage

- waste deep bunkers(but not pot bunkers as they are for The Open)

 

What have I missed? The idea of course is to embarrass and strike fear into the best in the world. Not to identify the best. Yes the common method of course setup had some great winners. Jack Tiger and Trevino for instance. But it also had it's Dick Mayers and Orville Moodys. Perhaps that setup was not that great at identifying the best player but selecting winners based on playing styles. If an Andy North can win three times on tour and two of them are US Opens perhaps the setup is not identifying the best but merely the straightest?

That's what I like about the majors. It takes the ability to win on venues that require different styles/skills. As I noted I don't care to see 2 PGA championships. The Master's is a 2nd shot course and challenge in scrambling/putting. The US Open requires precision in driving and approach shot as well as scrambling and putting. The Open is a test of ability to shot make and play high and low while dealing with the elements of wind and rain. The PGA well . . . it's glory's last stand. LOL. Actually it's more of Tour stop and unfortunately TV money probably won't allow it but I'd love to see it go back to match play - play qualifier stroke then cut field to 32 or 16 for matches.

 

 

The U.S. Open is on its way to just being another Tour stop if they keep playing at easy tracks like Erin Hills.

[PGArox]

The Masters is a 2nd shot course and challenge in scrambling/putting. The US Open requires precision in driving and approach shot as well as scrambling and putting. The Open is a test of ability to shot make and play high and low while dealing with the elements of wind and rain. The PGA well . . . it's glory's last stand.

 

LOL! Well done. :)

[SadTrombone]

How is being only 4 strokes easier then Oakmont, 3 shots easier then Chambers Bay and 1 shot harder then Pinehurst make Erin Hills too easy?

 

Man you people are obsessed with Par. Was Oakmont on the verge of being to east? Must've been with only being 1 stroke a round harder.

Bad comparison. Try the last par 72 US Open at Pebble Beach in 1992 - winning score there was 285 versus 272 at EH.

 

Exactly. And one must be obtuse to not get it. If a U.S. Open course is setup as a par 72, and they want par to be the benchmark for scoring, then the final winning score should be ... HOLD ON TO YOUR HATS! ... 288. See how that works?

 

So let's follow this line of thought. If this year's final score was, say, 280 ... and a previous year's (on a par 70 course) was also 280, which layout allowed for more birdies? It's really not that difficult to understand, folks, even though some people on this board seem to have a problem with it.

 

The fact is - par is very much a significant concept. It is built into golf, and always has been. When golf course architects build their designs they assign a number of par to every hole. A par 3 is meant to be played in ... you guessed it ... three shots. If it generally plays in 2.85 shots it is considered easy, and if it is generally played in 3.5 shots it is considered difficult. This stuff is elementary for people who actually understand golf and have a brain.

 

 

Can someone sticky this post? I swear people forget what the definition of golf is. The course is either easy or it isn't. Erin Hills is easy. For U.S. Open standards, it's the easiest course in the tournament's history.

 

Golf

noun

1) a game in which clubs with wooden or metal heads are used to hit a small, whit eball into a number of holes, usually 9 or 18, in succession, situated at various distances over a course having natural or artificial obstacles, the object being to get the ball into each hole in as few strokes as possible.

2) a word used in communications to represent the letter G.

verb.

1) to play golf.

 

I don't see anything in here about par. I do see, within the definition, "get the ball into each hole in as few strokes as possible."

[PGArox]

Wisconsin Open�� I will say that I enjoy the new venues. I get tired of the same ole rotation...

As an Aussie, why do they seem to only play Opens at SoCal or northern venues? I always thought there were great courses in Texas and Florida but we never see them host the Open. Is it weather related?

 

They have played 3 US Opens in Texas: 1941 at Colonial (Fort Worth), 1952 at the Northwood Club (Dallas), and 1969 at Champions (Houston). My guess is that the USGA hasn't been back to Texas because they feel there are better courses for the championship elsewhere.

 

Yeah, I have never bought the heat issue. It gets darned hot in Tulsa, Oklahoma ... just as hot as Texas ... and Southern Hills has hosted several majors, with another coming soon.

 

The fact is, while the great state of Texas has many fine courses, the USGA and PGA of America obviously feel there is not a course worthy of a major championship.

 

As an aside, if you look at GOLF Magazine's or Golf Digest's rankings of the 100 greatest courses in the United States, the state of Texas is woefully lacking on those lists.

 

California, and more especially southern California, would seem to be the ideal location to hold a major championship, what with its almost always great weather and large population centers. There is no doubt in my mind that famed and fabled Riviera Country Club would be much more highly sought after by the USGA and PGA of America were it not for its extremely troublesome logistical problems.

 

When Trump National Los Angeles (Palos Verdes) was first conceived by Pete Dye, and named Ocean Trails, the idea was to bring seaside major championship golf to southern California. We even called it Pebble Beach South. :) Unfortunately, things just never panned out the way we had hoped. :(

[SadTrombone]

Wisconsin Open�� I will say that I enjoy the new venues. I get tired of the same ole rotation...

As an Aussie, why do they seem to only play Opens at SoCal or northern venues? I always thought there were great courses in Texas and Florida but we never see them host the Open. Is it weather related?

 

They have played 3 US Opens in Texas: 1941 at Colonial (Fort Worth), 1952 at the Northwood Club (Dallas), and 1969 at Champions (Houston). My guess is that the USGA hasn't been back to Texas because they feel there are better courses for the championship elsewhere.

 

Yeah, I have never bought the heat issue. It gets darned hot in Tulsa, Oklahoma ... just as hot as Texas ... and Southern Hills has hosted several majors, with another coming soon.

 

The fact is, while the great state of Texas has many fine courses, the USGA and PGA of America obviously feel there is not a course worthy of a major championship.

 

As an aside, if you look at GOLF Magazine's or Golf Digest's rankings of the 100 greatest courses in the United States, the state of Texas is woefully lacking on those lists.

 

California, and more especially southern California, would seem to be the ideal location to hold a major championship, what with its almost always great weather and large population centers. There is no doubt in my mind that famed and fabled Riviera Country Club would be much more highly sought after by the USGA and PGA of America were it not for its extremely troublesome logistical problems.

 

When Trump National Los Angeles (Palos Verdes) was first conceived by Pete Dye, and named Ocean Trails) the idea was to bring seaside major championship golf to southern California. We even called it Pebble Beach South. :) Unfortunately, things just never panned out the way we had hoped. :(

 

Not just the weather and population centers, but think of the TV. You'd have the leaders playing in prime time on the east coast. Ratings bonanza!

[bermuda]

 

Not just the weather and population centers, but think of the TV. You'd have the leaders playing in prime time on the east coast. Ratings bonanza!

 

That's why I love West Coast majors.

[Shilgy]

Wisconsin Open�� I will say that I enjoy the new venues. I get tired of the same ole rotation...

As an Aussie, why do they seem to only play Opens at SoCal or northern venues? I always thought there were great courses in Texas and Florida but we never see them host the Open. Is it weather related?

 

They have played 3 US Opens in Texas: 1941 at Colonial (Fort Worth), 1952 at the Northwood Club (Dallas), and 1969 at Champions (Houston). My guess is that the USGA hasn't been back to Texas because they feel there are better courses for the championship elsewhere.

 

Yeah, I have never bought the heat issue. It gets darned hot in Tulsa, Oklahoma ... just as hot as Texas ... and Southern Hills has hosted several majors, with another coming soon.

 

The fact is, while the great state of Texas has many fine courses, the USGA and PGA of America obviously feel there is not a course worthy of a major championship.

 

As an aside, if you look at GOLF Magazine's or Golf Digest's rankings of the 100 greatest courses in the United States, the state of Texas is woefully lacking on those lists.

 

California, and more especially southern California, would seem to be the ideal location to hold a major championship, what with its almost always great weather and large population centers. There is no doubt in my mind that famed and fabled Riviera Country Club would be much more highly sought after by the USGA and PGA of America were it not for its extremely troublesome logistical problems.

 

When Trump National Los Angeles (Palos Verdes) was first conceived by Pete Dye, and named Ocean Trails, the idea was to bring seaside major championship golf to southern California. We even called it Pebble Beach South. :) Unfortunately, things just never panned out the way we had hoped. :(

Infrastructure and fan access is almost more important than the course these days. Which is why Merion was a odd deal. As I recall they limited tickets to 25 thousand a day? That will not fly every year. There has to be room for hospitality tents, parking and such to host major events today.