Pros and others throw USGA under the bus.

[Mikey5e]

> @BNGL said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

>

> First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

>

> That being said...

>

> Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

>

> And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

 

Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @gvogel said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > >

> > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > >

> > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> >

> > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

>

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > >

> > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > >

> > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> >

> > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

>

> That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

>

>

 

Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

[ThinkingPlus]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> >

> > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> >

> > That being said...

> >

> > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> >

> > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

>

> Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > >

> > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > >

> > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > >

> > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > >

> > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > >

> > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > >

> > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> >

> > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> >

> >

>

> Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

 

I do.

[sdandrea]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> >

> > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> >

> > That being said...

> >

> > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> >

> > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

>

> Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > >

> > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > >

> > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > >

> > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > >

> > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > >

> > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > >

> > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> >

> > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> >

> >

>

> Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

 

Yes.

[umassgolfer]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> >

> > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> >

> > That being said...

> >

> > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> >

> > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

>

> Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > >

> > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > >

> > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > >

> > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> >

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > >

> > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > >

> > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > >

> > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> >

> > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> >

> >

>

> Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

 

Yup. I did this week because I thought the course sounded interesting. Broadcast was great, and course was fascinating, which kept me on USWO vs. Memorial.

[rangersgoalie]

I did.....cool old course. Didn’t televise well, but watching the ladies play that course was fun

[caniac6]

I watched. Wanted to see the course, and as a bonus, saw some very good play as well. Very impressed, and will watch more in the future.

[bladehunter]

> @ThinkingPlus said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> > >

> > > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> > >

> > > That being said...

> > >

> > > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> > >

> > > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

> >

> > Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > >

> > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > >

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > >

> > > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > > >

> > > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> > >

> > > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

>

> I do.

 

Me too. And I noticed that the USga in their infinite wisdom managed to give a slow play penalty to an Am ( Andrea Lee) , while rounds as a whole were taking 6 hours to play. Really ? There wasn’t a single pro responsible? Just this one amateur ? Same thing has happened several times on the men’s side too.

[LICC]

> @umassgolfer said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> > >

> > > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> > >

> > > That being said...

> > >

> > > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> > >

> > > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

> >

> > Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > >

> > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > >

 

>

> Yup. I did this week because I thought the course sounded interesting. Broadcast was great, and course was fascinating, which kept me on USWO vs. Memorial.

 

Really, the course was fascinating? I’ve played some top MacDonald/Raynor courses and obviously know of others, and while CC Charleston looks to be very good and classic design is always interesting, it doesn’t seem to measure near the top.

[umassgolfer]

> @LICC said:

> > @umassgolfer said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> > > >

> > > > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> > > >

> > > > That being said...

> > > >

> > > > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > > > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> > > >

> > > > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

> > >

> > > Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > >

> > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > >

>

> >

> > Yup. I did this week because I thought the course sounded interesting. Broadcast was great, and course was fascinating, which kept me on USWO vs. Memorial.

>

> Really, the course was fascinating? I’ve played some top MacDonald/Raynor courses and obviously know of others, and while CC Charleston looks to be very good and classic design is always interesting, it doesn’t seem to measure near the top.

 

Yes, I thought it was fascinating - I guess a combination of the course and the playing styles of the women vs. the men. Trying to hit certain sides of fairways to set up approach angles, how the green complexes affected recovery shots - playing for a wedge in from a good angle vs. trying to get it somewhere near the green to try to get up and down, etc.. Some tried to play an aerial approach and it backfired - specifically holes like #6 where the best shots were long irons that landed just short of the false front and hopped up. I don't need to see 4 irons hitting and sticking every week.

 

You're entitled to your opinion that it didn't meet your aesthetic standards, or that this wasn't a great course for the championship. We'll just agree to disagree. I thought it was more interesting to watch than the Memorial. And as pretty and luxurious as the course looked, watching the two events the same weekend, my impression was that while I'd love to play either, CC of Charleston would be higher on my list.

[tiderider]

> @umassgolfer said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @umassgolfer said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> > > > >

> > > > > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > That being said...

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > > > > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> > > > >

> > > > > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

> > > >

> > > > Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> > > Yup. I did this week because I thought the course sounded interesting. Broadcast was great, and course was fascinating, which kept me on USWO vs. Memorial.

> >

> > Really, the course was fascinating? I’ve played some top MacDonald/Raynor courses and obviously know of others, and while CC Charleston looks to be very good and classic design is always interesting, it doesn’t seem to measure near the top.

>

> Yes, I thought it was fascinating - I guess a combination of the course and the playing styles of the women vs. the men. Trying to hit certain sides of fairways to set up approach angles, how the green complexes affected recovery shots - playing for a wedge in from a good angle vs. trying to get it somewhere near the green to try to get up and down, etc.. Some tried to play an aerial approach and it backfired - specifically holes like #6 where the best shots were long irons that landed just short of the false front and hopped up. I don't need to see 4 irons hitting and sticking every week.

>

> You're entitled to your opinion that it didn't meet your aesthetic standards, or that this wasn't a great course for the championship. We'll just agree to disagree. I thought it was more interesting to watch than the Memorial. And as pretty and luxurious as the course looked, watching the two events the same weekend, my impression was that while I'd love to play either, CC of Charleston would be higher on my list.

 

listened to NLU's latest podcast whilst driving back from sand valley and they echoed everything you said ... the women's course/play was much more interesting and fun to watch than the men's, and fox (according to them) did a great job of explaining the different shots they were about to hit ...

[gvogel]

> @umassgolfer said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> > >

> > > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> > >

> > > That being said...

> > >

> > > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> > >

> > > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

> >

> > Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > >

> > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > >

> > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > >

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > >

> > > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > > >

> > > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> > >

> > > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

>

> Yup. I did this week because I thought the course sounded interesting. Broadcast was great, and course was fascinating, which kept me on USWO vs. Memorial.

 

Me too.

[LICC]

> @umassgolfer said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @umassgolfer said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> > > > >

> > > > > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > That being said...

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > > > > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> > > > >

> > > > > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

> > > >

> > > > Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > >

> >

> > >

> > > Yup. I did this week because I thought the course sounded interesting. Broadcast was great, and course was fascinating, which kept me on USWO vs. Memorial.

> >

> > Really, the course was fascinating? I’ve played some top MacDonald/Raynor courses and obviously know of others, and while CC Charleston looks to be very good and classic design is always interesting, it doesn’t seem to measure near the top.

>

> Yes, I thought it was fascinating - I guess a combination of the course and the playing styles of the women vs. the men. Trying to hit certain sides of fairways to set up approach angles, how the green complexes affected recovery shots - playing for a wedge in from a good angle vs. trying to get it somewhere near the green to try to get up and down, etc.. Some tried to play an aerial approach and it backfired - specifically holes like #6 where the best shots were long irons that landed just short of the false front and hopped up. I don't need to see 4 irons hitting and sticking every week.

>

> You're entitled to your opinion that it didn't meet your aesthetic standards, or that this wasn't a great course for the championship. We'll just agree to disagree. I thought it was more interesting to watch than the Memorial. And as pretty and luxurious as the course looked, watching the two events the same weekend, my impression was that while I'd love to play either, CC of Charleston would be higher on my list.

 

I agree about watching the women play to see strategy more similar to what I experience when I play. Par 5s that actually play as 3-shot holes, thinking through positioning, etc. I just think that the US Women's Open should be a premier event at a premier, best of the best type course. I would have found National Golf Links fascinating. CC of Charleston I found interesting enough but not tremendously so. And the on-screen visual wasn't great. I also agree that the Fox coverage was very good.

[MidwestGolfBum]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> > > >

> > > > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> > > >

> > > > That being said...

> > > >

> > > > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > > > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> > > >

> > > > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

> > >

> > > Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > >

> > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > >

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> > > >

> > > > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

> >

> > I do.

>

> Me too. And I noticed that the USga in their infinite wisdom managed to give a slow play penalty to an Am ( Andrea Lee) , while rounds as a whole were taking 6 hours to play. Really ? There wasn’t a single pro responsible? Just this one amateur ? Same thing has happened several times on the men’s side too.

 

It's just so much easier to hand out that slow play penalty to somebody who isn't getting paid so they can say they have made an effort while not impacting somebody's livelihood as a pro. I find it completely insane and backwards, but that tends to be the norm in the world of the USGA.

[davep043]

> @MidwestGolfBum said:

>

> It's just so much easier to hand out that slow play penalty to somebody who isn't getting paid so they can say they have made an effort while not impacting somebody's livelihood as a pro. I find it completely insane and backwards, but that tends to be the norm in the world of the USGA.

 

I understand that the USGA is always at fault, but does anyone actually know the facts? Did anyone else actually violate the slow play policy for the event, or are you just assuming? Did the young amateur violate the policy? Yes, 3 hours for 9 is way excessive, so is 5:45 for 18. I know that I don't have all the facts, but I read that 13 groups received warnings, 5 were put on the clock, and 3 players had one bad time after being on the clock. A player in Lee's group explained how amateurs have a hard time adjusting to being on the clock, that they haven't learned techniques the professionals use to keep their times within the criteria, but didn't apparently say that the penalty was inappropriate. This is the most complete discussion of the situation that I could find.

https://golfweek.com/2019/06/02/golf-amateur-andrea-lee-penalized-slow-play-u-s-womens-open/

In my view, an official working for the USGA is more likely to apply a stroke penalty to a pro during a US Open than an employee of the PGA Tour is on a PGA Tour pro during a PGA Tour event.

[Oldboy]

> @LICC said:

> > @umassgolfer said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @Oldboy said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > >

> > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > >

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > > > >

> > > > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> > > >

> > > > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> > > Without knowing where you are, its a little difficult to understand what you'd prefer to see. The fairways weren't bright green, they were summer Bermuda grass color. The Bermuda rough was high enough to be a significant problem. The greens seems firm and fast without being crazy. What do you prefer?

> >

> > It's the ANGC effect that plagues so many courses. Sets an unrealistic standard of what courses can/should look like. Then, members/public golfers hold their courses to that standard. CC of Charleston was marvelous and such a welcome break from the monotony of overwatered courses we see weekly.

>

> It is not a matter of what a course should look like. It is a matter of what looks good on television and what doesn't. CC of Charleston looked flat and boring on the screen. In person I'm sure it has very interesting features that look good but those don't show on TV. Muirfield Village looked great on TV. Pebble Beach looks great on TV. Bethpage looked good on TV. Riviera, Sawgrass, Shadow Creek look good. Trinity Forest doesn't. Firestone never did. None of this means one course is better than the other. But as a viewer, some courses look bland on TV and others look good.

 

This. Flat. No distinctive features. Boring.

[GeorgeHWB]

> @davep043 said:

> I understand that the USGA is always at fault

 

 

Thanks for recognizing that fact.

 

:)

 

[buckeyefl]

> @davep043 said:

> > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> >

> > It's just so much easier to hand out that slow play penalty to somebody who isn't getting paid so they can say they have made an effort while not impacting somebody's livelihood as a pro. I find it completely insane and backwards, but that tends to be the norm in the world of the USGA.

>

> I understand that the USGA is always at fault, but does anyone actually know the facts? Did anyone else actually violate the slow play policy for the event, or are you just assuming? Did the young amateur violate the policy? Yes, 3 hours for 9 is way excessive, so is 5:45 for 18. I know that I don't have all the facts, but I read that 13 groups received warnings, 5 were put on the clock, and 3 players had one bad time after being on the clock. A player in Lee's group explained how amateurs have a hard time adjusting to being on the clock, that they haven't learned techniques the professionals use to keep their times within the criteria, but didn't apparently say that the penalty was inappropriate. This is the most complete discussion of the situation that I could find.

> https://golfweek.com/2019/06/02/golf-amateur-andrea-lee-penalized-slow-play-u-s-womens-open/

> In my view, an official working for the USGA is more likely to apply a stroke penalty to a pro during a US Open than an employee of the PGA Tour is on a PGA Tour pro during a PGA Tour event.

 

Why would they have a hard time when every single event they play has a PoP policy that is the same or extremely similar? We'll test you theory next week but i bet if you grab yourself a stopwatche you will find 75% of the field violating as they do every week with no penalty.

[davep043]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > >

> > > It's just so much easier to hand out that slow play penalty to somebody who isn't getting paid so they can say they have made an effort while not impacting somebody's livelihood as a pro. I find it completely insane and backwards, but that tends to be the norm in the world of the USGA.

> >

> > I understand that the USGA is always at fault, but does anyone actually know the facts? Did anyone else actually violate the slow play policy for the event, or are you just assuming? Did the young amateur violate the policy? Yes, 3 hours for 9 is way excessive, so is 5:45 for 18. I know that I don't have all the facts, but I read that 13 groups received warnings, 5 were put on the clock, and 3 players had one bad time after being on the clock. A player in Lee's group explained how amateurs have a hard time adjusting to being on the clock, that they haven't learned techniques the professionals use to keep their times within the criteria, but didn't apparently say that the penalty was inappropriate. This is the most complete discussion of the situation that I could find.

> > https://golfweek.com/2019/06/02/golf-amateur-andrea-lee-penalized-slow-play-u-s-womens-open/

> > In my view, an official working for the USGA is more likely to apply a stroke penalty to a pro during a US Open than an employee of the PGA Tour is on a PGA Tour pro during a PGA Tour event.

>

> Why would they have a hard time when every single event they play has a PoP policy that is the same or extremely similar? We'll test you theory next week but i bet if you grab yourself a stopwatche you will find 75% of the field violating as they do every week with no penalty.

 

I don't know what the PoP policy is in amateur events, I merely read what her playing partner said. Was she wrong?

It doesn't matter how long they take over a shot, as long as they're not out of position, at least based on the PGA Tour PoP policy. Is the policy in USGA events any different? The description from the GolfWeek article makes it sound pretty similar. Its a 3-step process to get penalized, and its extremely rare to see anyone fail all 3 steps.

[buckeyefl]

They all are very similar and similarly unenforced.

 

"She took 51 seconds to hit her third shot on No. 15 and 54 seconds to hit her second shot on No. 16.

 

Players are allotted 40 seconds to hit their shot unless they are the first to hit in the group. Then they get 50 seconds."

 

I guarantee you that you can find plenty of named players who broke that time over and over.

 

"Lee is playing in her third U.S. Women’s Open. She’s a USGA championship veteran and two-time Curtis Cupper. John Bodenhamer, USGA senior managing director of championships, said they don’t take pleasure in doling out slow-play penalties for anyone – amateur or professional."

 

Lets just go with professionals as based on her history she is well aware of the rules and how they work. If anything she learned from the best at slow play, the pros in the field.

[Shilgy]

> @Oldboy said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @umassgolfer said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @Oldboy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Without knowing where you are, its a little difficult to understand what you'd prefer to see. The fairways weren't bright green, they were summer Bermuda grass color. The Bermuda rough was high enough to be a significant problem. The greens seems firm and fast without being crazy. What do you prefer?

> > >

> > > It's the ANGC effect that plagues so many courses. Sets an unrealistic standard of what courses can/should look like. Then, members/public golfers hold their courses to that standard. CC of Charleston was marvelous and such a welcome break from the monotony of overwatered courses we see weekly.

> >

> > It is not a matter of what a course should look like. It is a matter of what looks good on television and what doesn't. CC of Charleston looked flat and boring on the screen. In person I'm sure it has very interesting features that look good but those don't show on TV. Muirfield Village looked great on TV. Pebble Beach looks great on TV. Bethpage looked good on TV. Riviera, Sawgrass, Shadow Creek look good. Trinity Forest doesn't. Firestone never did. None of this means one course is better than the other. But as a viewer, some courses look bland on TV and others look good.

>

> This. Flat. No distinctive features. Boring.

 

Do you believe courses should be chosen for the challenge they present to the competitors or how they will present on television?

[davep043]

> @buckeyefl said:

> They all are very similar and similarly unenforced.

 

So I ask again, was her playing partner's analysis inaccurate? After all, she was actually there at the time, perhaps she knows more than you or I do.

[LICC]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Oldboy said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @umassgolfer said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @Oldboy said:

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Without knowing where you are, its a little difficult to understand what you'd prefer to see. The fairways weren't bright green, they were summer Bermuda grass color. The Bermuda rough was high enough to be a significant problem. The greens seems firm and fast without being crazy. What do you prefer?

> > > >

> > > > It's the ANGC effect that plagues so many courses. Sets an unrealistic standard of what courses can/should look like. Then, members/public golfers hold their courses to that standard. CC of Charleston was marvelous and such a welcome break from the monotony of overwatered courses we see weekly.

> > >

> > > It is not a matter of what a course should look like. It is a matter of what looks good on television and what doesn't. CC of Charleston looked flat and boring on the screen. In person I'm sure it has very interesting features that look good but those don't show on TV. Muirfield Village looked great on TV. Pebble Beach looks great on TV. Bethpage looked good on TV. Riviera, Sawgrass, Shadow Creek look good. Trinity Forest doesn't. Firestone never did. None of this means one course is better than the other. But as a viewer, some courses look bland on TV and others look good.

> >

> > This. Flat. No distinctive features. Boring.

>

> Do you believe courses should be chosen for the challenge they present to the competitors or how they will present on television?

 

For what should be the top public showcase of U.S. women's golf, the course should be at the highest levels for both.

[Tasals]

> @davep043 said:

> > @buckeyefl said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > > >

> > > > It's just so much easier to hand out that slow play penalty to somebody who isn't getting paid so they can say they have made an effort while not impacting somebody's livelihood as a pro. I find it completely insane and backwards, but that tends to be the norm in the world of the USGA.

> > >

> > > I understand that the USGA is always at fault, but does anyone actually know the facts? Did anyone else actually violate the slow play policy for the event, or are you just assuming? Did the young amateur violate the policy? Yes, 3 hours for 9 is way excessive, so is 5:45 for 18. I know that I don't have all the facts, but I read that 13 groups received warnings, 5 were put on the clock, and 3 players had one bad time after being on the clock. A player in Lee's group explained how amateurs have a hard time adjusting to being on the clock, that they haven't learned techniques the professionals use to keep their times within the criteria, but didn't apparently say that the penalty was inappropriate. This is the most complete discussion of the situation that I could find.

> > > https://golfweek.com/2019/06/02/golf-amateur-andrea-lee-penalized-slow-play-u-s-womens-open/

> > > In my view, an official working for the USGA is more likely to apply a stroke penalty to a pro during a US Open than an employee of the PGA Tour is on a PGA Tour pro during a PGA Tour event.

> >

> > Why would they have a hard time when every single event they play has a PoP policy that is the same or extremely similar? We'll test you theory next week but i bet if you grab yourself a stopwatche you will find 75% of the field violating as they do every week with no penalty.

>

> I don't know what the PoP policy is in amateur events, I merely read what her playing partner said. Was she wrong?

> It doesn't matter how long they take over a shot, as long as they're not out of position, at least based on the PGA Tour PoP policy. Is the policy in USGA events any different? The description from the GolfWeek article makes it sound pretty similar. Its a 3-step process to get penalized, and its extremely rare to see anyone fail all 3 steps.

 

You haven't played golf for a Mid-AM state/provincial/country or State/provincial/country open qualifiers have you? The time par penalties are quick and regularly enforced. It also doesnt go to a single player in most cases but whole groups. Ive literally seen a group making the turn with one guy hitting a shot waiting for his playing partners to be able to see him and hit in an attempt to get the pace going forward, This guy was 3/4 - full hole ahead of his group they were so slow and he got the same penalty as his two playing partners and the playing partners had the audacity to try and argue that they werent that slow and out of position.

 

The PoP penalties are handled completely differently on tour in the US Open. If it was a regular event (regular AM event), all the players looking at 5:45 - 6 hr rounds would be getting penalties, probably multiple ones unless there was a legitimate reason on the course but that is rare. Ie you dont get 20 minutes for rulings unless its some extenuating circumstances, you play two balls and keep moving.

[davep043]

> @buckeyefl said:

> I guarantee you that you can find plenty of named players who broke that time over and over.

 

Go ahead, find them, post the video for us. Oh, and make sure these players are on the clock when they repeatedly break that time. Because under the policy, it only matters once they are informed that they're being timed. If they're in position, they can take as long as they want over a shot without any PoP concerns. We've certainly seen lots of it from players who are NOT on the clock, but most manage to speed up just enough when they have to.

I dislike slow play, I hate watching them stand around, but I put most of the blame on a policy that makes it pretty easy to escape penalty strokes. If PGA Tour players as a group want to improve the pace of play, they can revise their policy to be tougher on players. So far, they've chosen not to do that.

 

[bladehunter]

> @MidwestGolfBum said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @ThinkingPlus said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > > @BNGL said:

> > > > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > > > The worst thing that can happen is the USGA making PB cupcake difficult. There are a few in here, based on their comments, that like -30 winners. I think true golf fans like the winner at about 0 - 5 under.

> > > > >

> > > > > First off son, I never said minus 30. What I did say, is that I was locked into the LPGA event a couple years ago where a young young lady shot 31 under 257, which over 72 holes to go 31 under par? Is absolutely the best golf I have seen on television. And that 25 under par score would be fantastic! When one can recognize a tough golf course and see someone be the anomaly that’s special to me.

> > > > >

> > > > > That being said...

> > > > >

> > > > > Let me spell out clearly (so that you don’t ever have to think again, it’s laid out right here for you since inferring and assumptions about others thoughts are clearly taxing your mental capacity) what I like to see from a golf tournament. I want to see one that allows players to score, only by hitting quality shots. Matching the trajectory with spin and shot shape to the course should be rewarded. Not one that rejects good shots, because it becomes too much luck and no skill.

> > > > > The penalty should be severe, but not so much so that it’s an automatic punch out out hit to the middle of the green. If you can pull of a great recovery then you should be rewarded, but it seems to me (based on being at Oakmont twice, Shinnecock, Olympic, etc) that isn’t the case necessarily. I believe that you can set up a golf course where you can take the challenge off the tee, and have an easier approach or take the easy line off the tee and have a more difficult approach. Now part of this is outside anyone’s hands but the course designer, so you have to piece together each hole individually to make a puzzle that will challenge the best in the world. What I mean is; mowing patterns, fairway widths, rough heights, light furrowing of bunkers parallel with the line of play, slow the greens down but keep the firmness, vary tees all that stuff that has a set standard for every hole might not need to be so. A hole where guys have wedges in hands for the approach can have longer rough but a reachable par 5 or long par 4 cut it down a little bit to allow for some creativity rather than a wedge.

> > > > >

> > > > > And if one player or several have the answers that week then we will be treated to some high level golf.

> > > >

> > > > Talk ab> @Oldboy said:

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > >

> > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > > > > @gvogel said:

> > > > > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > > > > @Golfer4Life said:

> > > > > > > > > > > Watching the Women's U.S. Open and now I understand why the USGA is a destructive force in golf. Basically they are like an Egyptian plague, the pick a course, kill it, and move on?????

> > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > > What exactly is the problem there? It looked great to me.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > No problem whatsoever. The players had positive reviews of the course and the set up. It looked fine on TV, even with a lot of brown areas. The Southeast had endured a heat wave before the tournament. The course was difficult and fast, but not crazy. It was a wonderful major championship course for the ladies.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > While the course looked interesting from a design standpoint, I actually don't think it showed well on television. Compare it to how Muirfield Village looked when flipping channels and it just seemed to not be on the same level on the screen.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Different grass types, different topography, and different climates produce different appearances.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Also the relatively flat landscape and openness that brought in views of cars, bridge, buildings, etc.

> > > > >

> > > > > That women’s us open course looked terrible on tv sorry. We have several muni’s that look more appealing than that course tbh. Visually it wasn’t a good look.

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

> > >

> > > I do.

> >

> > Me too. And I noticed that the USga in their infinite wisdom managed to give a slow play penalty to an Am ( Andrea Lee) , while rounds as a whole were taking 6 hours to play. Really ? There wasn’t a single pro responsible? Just this one amateur ? Same thing has happened several times on the men’s side too.

>

> It's just so much easier to hand out that slow play penalty to somebody who isn't getting paid so they can say they have made an effort while not impacting somebody's livelihood as a pro. I find it completely insane and backwards, but that tends to be the norm in the world of the USGA.

 

Clearly the reason is $. When you do it to a pro it costs them money. It costs sponsors money. Those sponsors maybe tied to USGA folks etc etc. an am with no $ ties is an easy mark.

 

She didn’t play in 3 hours for 9 by herself. Not was her group 2 holes behind the one in front of hers. I’m just saying that anybody could have been penalized. But as usual it’s the am with no backing. Why wasn’t the whole group penalized ?

 

I can just see the pre round rules official meeting “ let’s keep an eye on those ams out there. “.

[DFS PFD]

She was the only person penalized because she was the only one with 2 (two) time infractions? She was not singled out because she's an AM. She and the other three people to have 1 (one) time infraction were not penalized at that time. Once she failed to make time again, then she was assessed a penalty.

[munichop]

It is well known that the women play the slowest of the pro tours even though they play shorter layouts. If the current POP rules allows 6 hours to play 18 holes without penalty then the POP rules are meaningless. I have attended PGA, champions, and LPGA events in person. All 3 tours need a clock for equity and markers who time each contestant. No one should take 6 hours to play 18 holes of golf.

[davep043]

> @bladehunter said:

> She didn’t play in 3 hours for 9 by herself. Not was her group 2 holes behind the one in front of hers. I’m just saying that anybody could have been penalized. But as usual it’s the am with no backing. Why wasn’t the whole group penalized ?

>

> I can just see the pre round rules official meeting “ let’s keep an eye on those ams out there. “.

 

The whole golf course played slow. IT would seem to be pretty easy to keep up when play is that slow, but 13 different groups fell behind far enough that they got warnings about their slow play, five groups got so far behind that they were put on the clock. These groups WERE a significant distance behind, and this amateur was in one of those groups.

> Most of the field went off in threesomes on Saturday (the first two were twosomes). Thirteen groups received warnings. Five groups were put on the clock and three players received a bad time. Lee was the only one who received a second bad time, which is why she was penalized.

Perhaps the conspiracy theorists will conclude that the officials chose to ignore multiple bad times by other (professional) players in those five groups who were being timed. I wasn't watching all of them, I can't provide evidence that those conspiracy theories are wrong, but I believe its unlikely.

[Roadking2003]

> @Mikey5e said:

> Does anybody really watch The Women's u.s. Open? :*

Yes.

 

[Roadking2003]

> @bladehunter said:

> Me too. And I noticed that the USga in their infinite wisdom managed to give a slow play penalty to an Am ( Andrea Lee) , while rounds as a whole were taking 6 hours to play. Really ? There wasn’t a single pro responsible? Just this one amateur ? Same thing has happened several times on the men’s side too.

 

Did she violate her time? Twice?

 

Playing in six hours is not a violation of the pace of play rules.