Pros and others throw USGA under the bus.

[Mikey5e]

> @BNGL said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > My hope is the USGA doesn't make the courses too easy for the US Open tournament. I don't think it would be very difficult to make a course difficult to play, but still maintain fairness.

> > As for the incident with Phil last year, he just hammered that first one too hard to stop in those conditions. His second putt in that direction he missed and it stopped, indicating that he should have been more careful on his first putt. There is no golf tournament as boring as a tournament where are the top 10 golfers are all 15 to 25 under par. When golf is that easy I shut the TV off.

>

> I have to disagree. 15-25 under is fantastic. To me the most locked in event I was into was Sei Young Kim at the Thornberry Classic when she shot 31 under 257. I want to see how good the pros are, because I can post 10-12 under for four rounds at Medalist or Jupiter Hills. I do agree the US Open should be a challenge but your last couple sentences to me I disagree with.

 

I am assuming you like driver/wedge/1 putt birdies? Man, golf couldn't be more boring. I personally like course management type holes, where a golfer's skillset is really taxed. High pressure produces diamonds. Now I admit that gimmicky hard courses are ridiculous in their own way, but difficult challenging courses are what the US Open should be all about. I don't think most of the avid golf fans want to see 20 under par win the US Open, I think it's more entertaining for the winner to be at even-par or -3 or so. Driver/wedge/1 putt = turn the tv off.

[buckeyefl]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > My hope is the USGA doesn't make the courses too easy for the US Open tournament. I don't think it would be very difficult to make a course difficult to play, but still maintain fairness.

> > > As for the incident with Phil last year, he just hammered that first one too hard to stop in those conditions. His second putt in that direction he missed and it stopped, indicating that he should have been more careful on his first putt. There is no golf tournament as boring as a tournament where are the top 10 golfers are all 15 to 25 under par. When golf is that easy I shut the TV off.

> >

> > I have to disagree. 15-25 under is fantastic. To me the most locked in event I was into was Sei Young Kim at the Thornberry Classic when she shot 31 under 257. I want to see how good the pros are, because I can post 10-12 under for four rounds at Medalist or Jupiter Hills. I do agree the US Open should be a challenge but your last couple sentences to me I disagree with.

>

> I am assuming you like driver/wedge/1 putt birdies? Man, golf couldn't be more boring. I personally like course management type holes, where a golfer's skillset is really taxed. High pressure produces diamonds. Now I admit that gimmicky hard courses are ridiculous in their own way, but difficult challenging courses are what the US Open should be all about. I don't think most of the avid golf fans want to see 20 under par win the US Open, I think it's more entertaining for the winner to be at even-par or -3 or so. Driver/wedge/1 putt = turn the tv off.

 

Do you think that is the only formula to shoot those scores?

[QuigleyDU]

 

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > My hope is the USGA doesn't make the courses too easy for the US Open tournament. I don't think it would be very difficult to make a course difficult to play, but still maintain fairness.

> > > As for the incident with Phil last year, he just hammered that first one too hard to stop in those conditions. His second putt in that direction he missed and it stopped, indicating that he should have been more careful on his first putt. There is no golf tournament as boring as a tournament where are the top 10 golfers are all 15 to 25 under par. When golf is that easy I shut the TV off.

> >

> > I have to disagree. 15-25 under is fantastic. To me the most locked in event I was into was Sei Young Kim at the Thornberry Classic when she shot 31 under 257. I want to see how good the pros are, because I can post 10-12 under for four rounds at Medalist or Jupiter Hills. I do agree the US Open should be a challenge but your last couple sentences to me I disagree with.

>

> I am assuming you like driver/wedge/1 putt birdies? Man, golf couldn't be more boring. I personally like course management type holes, where a golfer's skillset is really taxed. High pressure produces diamonds. Now I admit that gimmicky hard courses are ridiculous in their own way, but difficult challenging courses are what the US Open should be all about. I don't think most of the avid golf fans want to see 20 under par win the US Open, I think it's more entertaining for the winner to be at even-par or -3 or so. Driver/wedge/1 putt = turn the tv off.

 

I dont disagree with you. Not to get too far off on a tangent. But, one of the biggest issues I have with TV golf is the endless cuts to players on greens putting and not enough full swings. I would love to watch lots of drivers and wedges, and less putts for par...

[bscinstnct]

The biggest player complaints on the US Open seem not so much about tight fairways and rough. They seem to be about the stimp and and then that they mess with pin placements to try to manipulate the score.

 

Interesting that this first quote if form a former player "When I played". Maybe we can approximate the general years this person played base on the 9.5 stimp they mention. Either way, he isn't playing now so not invested in the outcome but he is still critical...

 

"MULTIPLE MAJOR WINNER, INCLUDING THE U.S. OPEN: The players want tough, but they want fair. When I played, a lot of players complained, but it was fair. It was tight fairways, deep rough and hard, fast greens. But those greens ran at 9½ [on the Stimpmeter]. Now it's 14½, or more."

 

"MULTIPLE MAJOR CHAMPION, INCLUDING THE U.S. OPEN: The Stimp is a culprit in all of this, because there's a common ambition to get the greens as fast as possible. It's no wonder the longest rounds of the year are at the U.S. Open, because you can't go tap in a two-footer. You have to mark it, and you have to be careful and take your time and concentrate."

 

FORMER U.S. OPEN CHAMPION: Everything that goes wrong at the U.S. Open, the genesis is their obsession with the players not shooting under par.

MULTIPLE MAJOR CHAMPION, INCLUDING THE U.S. OPEN: They publicly say they aren't trying to chase a score, but it's pretty obvious that they are.

 

WINNER OF MORE THAN 10 EUROPEAN TOUR EVENTS: I get the feeling they're lying. [Laughs.]

 

WINNER OF MORE THAN 20 EUROPEAN TOUR EVENTS: Par as the winning score—they have to get rid of that immediately. The game has changed. The Masters tried to do that years ago and failed. The event was boring for a few years, so they put the excitement back.

 

FORMER U.S. OPEN CHAMPION: The Masters is clearly the most successful professional tournament in the world, by a mile.

 

SWING COACH FOR A MAJOR CHAMPION: Augusta's greens are stupid, but they put the pins in places that minimize the stupidity. The USGA never does that.

 

WINNER OF MORE THAN 20 EUROPEAN TOUR EVENTS: We used to know that, if you shot 65 on Day One of the U.S. Open, the pins would be in silly places the next day.

[DavePelz4]

When the PGA went into Bethpage Black, they let the current Superintendent manage the course and Kerry Haigh did the set up on the course to be fair. It was rare that you heard Kerry Haigh mentioned over the 4 days of the broadcast.

 

When the USGA goes into a course, they take over the management of the course in addition to the course set up. It's been Mike Davis (up until this year) who set up the course. It's often that you hear his name mentioned in the 4 days of the broadcasts.

 

 

[canonlbp430]

> @dalehead said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @BMC said:

> > > Running the US Open is a very small part of what the USGA does. Some pampered tour pros just complaining.

> > > Thousands of amateurs playing in hundreds of tournaments a year don't seem to have any problem with the USGA.

> >

> > Maybe because the USGA is good at amateur tournaments. The US Open, not so much.

>

> This is a good point. The USGA sets up courses for many championships including Senior US Open, Women's Open, and a slew of amateur championships, and they seem to do a good job. Why do they regularly have a problem with the Men's Open? My answer is they bring their preconceived ideas about how to run the Open with them and those ideas need to change.

>

 

The problem is from the format difference. In all the other events there is qualifying and match play, so no "scoreboard." The USGA obsession over the scoreboard along with them thinking they can set up the course on the edge for 8 hrs without any of the thousands of variables changing and pushing it to stupid town is their downfall. I had a past podcast saved with Mike Davis that I listened to the other day and he pretty much admitted to analyzing every single hole and setting it up individually to act the exact way he wants it to. When you have 18 holes set up individually they can't all stay that way throughout the day as 100+ golfers pass through and weather changes.

[Ferguson]

> @"Mr. Hogan" said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > Far be it from me, but in 200-n-something posts I have perused, not a single viable solution to the problems of the USGA.

>

> Viable solutions have been proposed. Everyone at the USGA should be fired and replaced with people who are not arrogant idiots.

>

 

The thoughts and decisions of the USGA and their employees do not impact you personally. Why do you care about it so much? Cleaning house would only compound the problem.

[farmer]

I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

[umassgolfer]

> @Mikey5e said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > My hope is the USGA doesn't make the courses too easy for the US Open tournament. I don't think it would be very difficult to make a course difficult to play, but still maintain fairness.

> > > As for the incident with Phil last year, he just hammered that first one too hard to stop in those conditions. His second putt in that direction he missed and it stopped, indicating that he should have been more careful on his first putt. There is no golf tournament as boring as a tournament where are the top 10 golfers are all 15 to 25 under par. When golf is that easy I shut the TV off.

> >

> > I have to disagree. 15-25 under is fantastic. To me the most locked in event I was into was Sei Young Kim at the Thornberry Classic when she shot 31 under 257. I want to see how good the pros are, because I can post 10-12 under for four rounds at Medalist or Jupiter Hills. I do agree the US Open should be a challenge but your last couple sentences to me I disagree with.

>

> I am assuming you like driver/wedge/1 putt birdies? Man, golf couldn't be more boring. I personally like course management type holes, where a golfer's skillset is really taxed. High pressure produces diamonds. Now I admit that gimmicky hard courses are ridiculous in their own way, but difficult challenging courses are what the US Open should be all about. I don't think most of the avid golf fans want to see 20 under par win the US Open, I think it's more entertaining for the winner to be at even-par or -3 or so. Driver/wedge/1 putt = turn the tv off.

 

I agree with 90% of your post. Where you lost me was "I don't think most of the avid golf fans want to see 20 under par win the US Open, I think it's more entertaining for the winner to be at even-par or -3 or so."

 

I don't care what the winning score is. The chasing of a certain score to par is the problem. The US Open should be a great test. If there are one or 3 or 9 guys who can get to -10 or better by thinking their way around a course and hitting exceptional shots, that's great viewing, as long as it is not driver, stick a wedge on a soft green, putt on every hole.

 

Par is just a number to compare players during their rounds...The winning score at Bethpage, which was called a Par-70 this year and heralded as such a tough test and successful championship, was 272. Brooks won at -8, which people liked. US Open 2017 at Erin Hills was considered way too easy for a US Open test because the winning score was -16, but played off par-72, and was won with a winning score of...272. Same as the PGA at Bethpage.

 

In 2016, Par was 71 at Bethpage for the Barclays. That same total score Brooks won with, 272, becomes -12 and all of a sudden there are 24 players from this year's PGA Championship at E or better (284), not 7. Is that getting borderline? Number of players at 284 or better in 2017 at Erin Hills ...21.

[davep043]

> @farmer said:

> I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

 

I agree with this. I also think that if some of the criticisms were a little longer than twitter posts they could be more constructive. For better or worse, the media seem to prefer sound bites and twitter-length quotes, and they're probably accurately responding their consumer's preferences. I think many more people will read the Golf Digest compendion of anonymous comments than will read all of Rapaport's article at si.com. In my experience, pithy one-liners have never really solved any significant problems.

[golfortennis]

> @umassgolfer said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > My hope is the USGA doesn't make the courses too easy for the US Open tournament. I don't think it would be very difficult to make a course difficult to play, but still maintain fairness.

> > > > As for the incident with Phil last year, he just hammered that first one too hard to stop in those conditions. His second putt in that direction he missed and it stopped, indicating that he should have been more careful on his first putt. There is no golf tournament as boring as a tournament where are the top 10 golfers are all 15 to 25 under par. When golf is that easy I shut the TV off.

> > >

> > > I have to disagree. 15-25 under is fantastic. To me the most locked in event I was into was Sei Young Kim at the Thornberry Classic when she shot 31 under 257. I want to see how good the pros are, because I can post 10-12 under for four rounds at Medalist or Jupiter Hills. I do agree the US Open should be a challenge but your last couple sentences to me I disagree with.

> >

> > I am assuming you like driver/wedge/1 putt birdies? Man, golf couldn't be more boring. I personally like course management type holes, where a golfer's skillset is really taxed. High pressure produces diamonds. Now I admit that gimmicky hard courses are ridiculous in their own way, but difficult challenging courses are what the US Open should be all about. I don't think most of the avid golf fans want to see 20 under par win the US Open, I think it's more entertaining for the winner to be at even-par or -3 or so. Driver/wedge/1 putt = turn the tv off.

>

> I agree with 90% of your post. Where you lost me was "I don't think most of the avid golf fans want to see 20 under par win the US Open, I think it's more entertaining for the winner to be at even-par or -3 or so."

>

> I don't care what the winning score is. The chasing of a certain score to par is the problem. The US Open should be a great test. If there are one or 3 or 9 guys who can get to -10 or better by thinking their way around a course and hitting exceptional shots, that's great viewing, as long as it is not driver, stick a wedge on a soft green, putt on every hole.

>

> Par is just a number to compare players during their rounds...The winning score at Bethpage, which was called a Par-70 this year and heralded as such a tough test and successful championship, was 272. Brooks won at -8, which people liked. US Open 2017 at Erin Hills was considered way too easy for a US Open test because the winning score was -16, but played off par-72, and was won with a winning score of...272. Same as the PGA at Bethpage.

>

> In 2016, Par was 71 at Bethpage for the Barclays. That same total score Brooks won with, 272, becomes -12 and all of a sudden there are 24 players from this year's PGA Championship at E or better (284), not 7. Is that getting borderline? Number of players at 284 or better in 2017 at Erin Hills ...21.

 

Now don't go introducing facts like "it was 272 every time." This par thing is very important!

[bladehunter]

> @farmer said:

> I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

 

Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

 

It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

[davep043]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @farmer said:

> > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

>

> Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

>

> It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

 

The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

[bladehunter]

> @davep043 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @farmer said:

> > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> >

> > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> >

> > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

>

> The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

 

Yep. I’d agree with the part of spilling DJ and Rory’s name. I’d have never done that. And would think anyone who did a coward.

 

But. The fact that no correction will come from them ( Dj and Rory ) does show it to be accurate. And lends credibility to the comments as a whole.

 

As for the USga ability for retribution ? It’s almost endless as far as the game goes. From pairings to tee times to rulings. There are many ways to make a tournament more or less pleasurable for a player.

[nsxguy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @buckeyefl said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > > I have to wonder why the below "headlines" from that article weren't copied and pasted here ???

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > **MULTIPLE MAJOR CHAMPION, INCLUDING THE U.S. OPEN: The USGA could do 10 great things at a U.S. Open, but the one bad thing they do is what gets publicized.

> > > > > > > > **

> > > > > > > > **MULTIPLE EUROPEAN TOUR WINNER: People overreact. I can't see Faldo or Nicklaus moaning about all that stuff.

> > > > > > > > **

> > > > > > > > **CADDIE FOR MULTIPLE PGA TOUR WINNERS: The USGA official with every group always patronizes the caddies on the first tee: “Make sure you've got 14 in there—count your clubs.” That's insulting.

> > > > > > > > **

> > > > > > > > LMAO - Patronizing ? Insulting ? Helping the caddies avoid getting fired for something we've seen a fair number of times ? That's "insulting" and "patronizing" ? now THAT is just good comedy.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > **TEACHER OF MULTIPLE MAJOR CHAMPIONS: They're amateurs who think they know it all—a dangerous combination.

> > > > > > > > **

> > > > > > > > Really ? Wow. Talk about "pot meet kettle".

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On 2nd thought, I don't wonder at all why nobody in this thread re-printed those statements. LOL

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It'll never happen but I'd love to see the players try to boycott the US Open. The stampede for the openings would be a sight to see.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And the point about spoiled players couldn't be more to the point. Millionaires complaining about other millionaires. 1st world problems indeed.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > And I'm not nearly so bored as to try to find out which of you guys said things like "Bomb and gouge" is killing golf." "Who wants to see -28 winning a tournament ?" "Everything is driver/wedge",,,,,,,,,,, and who is complaining about Open conditions.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > BTW, did anybody notice the rough at the PGA ? Jordan trying to hit a hybrid out of it. Only 6 players break par ?. Players having to wedge it back into play ? Disgraceful. I don't recall many people on here complaining about that. Good thing the greens at BB were, though pretty fast, for the most part, relatively flat - can you imagine the outcry ? LOL

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I read each of those quotes. But i take each differently than you spin them. I Totally get the caddie comment. As a expert in my field that deals with many many novice owners of my work , I have to grin and bare the teachings or reminders of soooo many idiots who couldn’t think their way out of a paper sack. My favorite is when a customer walks In and has a nice neat projection drawn up of what their fabrication project will cost. My first question is “ why didnt you do it yourself “? Which is met almost 100 % of the time with a huge gasp. Lol. Point. If you don’t do it. You can’t possibly tell me how to do it . Do you tell your doctor how to operate on your eyes ? Do you give your attorney advice ? Don’t give other professionals advice just Because you perceive them as blue collar and their job as menial.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > How come you have a "take" and I "spin" them ? You do realize that "spin" is a pejorative term indicating the write is trying to manipulate something, yes ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I didn't spin anything on the first 1, just quoted them. You know, to show that not all players, instructors etc. think the same way even though those quotes were not the ones the thread was based on. Fair is fair, no ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The 4th one I simply said "pot, meet kettle" to those who called the USGA "amateurs" vis-a-vis what they do and oversee. Those instructors don't do what the USGA does - yet they're criticizing the USGA and calling them amateurs ? Pretty funny actually - hence the pot/kettle.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > That leaves the 3rd one, the caddies, which you seem to be referencing. I don't really see how your customers equate to the USGA officials offering a friendly reminder to each "team" about a simple role. They're not "telling" anybody how to do their job. They're offering a friendly reminder to each "team" about a rule that's tripped up a number of players in the past. Hardly telling a doctor how to operate. Hyperbole much ?

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On the caddies. The right or wrong of it would be in the presentation of the “ friendly reminder “. If it offended someone enough to mention it. Chances are it was coming from down someone’s nose.

> > > >

> > > > This is an assumption based on personal bias, yes ?

> > >

> > > More like history.

> >

> > MULTIPLE MAJOR CHAMPION, INCLUDING THE U.S. OPEN: The USGA could do 10 great things at a U.S. Open, but the one bad thing they do is what gets publicized.,

> >

> > MULTIPLE EUROPEAN TOUR WINNER: People overreact. I can't see Faldo or Nicklaus moaning about all that stuff.

>

> Again. You read things differently than I.

>

> The first one. I read it to say that the USga manages to erase all the good the mid and lower level employees do all year , by making our ( yes OUR) national title a week filled with controversy.

 

THAT is how you read the first one ?

 

Oooooooooookay,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[nsxguy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @farmer said:

> > > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> > >

> > > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> > >

> > > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

> >

> > The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

>

> Yep. I’d agree with the part of spilling DJ and Rory’s name. I’d have never done that. And would think anyone who did a coward.

>

> But. The fact that no correction will come from them ( Dj and Rory ) does show it to be accurate. And lends credibility to the comments as a whole.

>

> **As for the USga ability for retribution ? It’s almost endless as far as the game goes. From pairings to tee times to rulings. There are many ways to make a tournament more or less pleasurable for a player. **

 

Can you give some (more specific) examples ?

 

[bladehunter]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> > > >

> > > > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> > > >

> > > > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

> > >

> > > The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

> >

> > Yep. I’d agree with the part of spilling DJ and Rory’s name. I’d have never done that. And would think anyone who did a coward.

> >

> > But. The fact that no correction will come from them ( Dj and Rory ) does show it to be accurate. And lends credibility to the comments as a whole.

> >

> > **As for the USga ability for retribution ? It’s almost endless as far as the game goes. From pairings to tee times to rulings. There are many ways to make a tournament more or less pleasurable for a player. **

>

> Can you give some (more specific) examples ?

>

 

Well.

 

You want a guy like Rory or DJ to stand a better chance to puke on the first two days. You pair him with the slowest player in the field. You watch the weather and See big chance of wind coming Friday after 12 . You be sure that player is first out Thursday morning so he hits the wind Friday afternoon. If there’s a particularly strict official with relief etc. you put him or her on the group. You want me to draw a scenario for a ruling out for you , it I’m not gong to take that bait. Those things have happened , can happen and each are dependent on several things. For us to act like a ruling body cannot possibly act in a favorable or less favorable manner at will , is just disingenuous talk.

[nsxguy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> > > > >

> > > > > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

> > > >

> > > > The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

> > >

> > > Yep. I’d agree with the part of spilling DJ and Rory’s name. I’d have never done that. And would think anyone who did a coward.

> > >

> > > But. The fact that no correction will come from them ( Dj and Rory ) does show it to be accurate. And lends credibility to the comments as a whole.

> > >

> > > **As for the USga ability for retribution ? It’s almost endless as far as the game goes. From pairings to tee times to rulings. There are many ways to make a tournament more or less pleasurable for a player. **

> >

> > Can you give some (more specific) examples ?

> >

>

> Well.

>

> You want a guy like Rory or DJ to stand a better chance to puke on the first two days. You pair him with the slowest player in the field. You watch the weather and See big chance of wind coming Friday after 12 . You be sure that player is first out Thursday morning so he hits the wind Friday afternoon. If there’s a particularly strict official with relief etc. you put him or her on the group. You want me to draw a scenario for a ruling out for you , it I’m not gong to take that bait. Those things have happened , can happen and each are dependent on several things. For us to act like a ruling body cannot possibly act in a favorable or less favorable manner at will , is just disingenuous talk.

 

Do you actually have ANY evidence, or even reasonable suspicion, that any of these things have happened ? Or would happen ?

 

Or that a USGA would NOT give a drop when one was warranted ? (Or vice versa to a different player ?)

 

Or is it just the normal everyday "conspiracy theorist" in you ? LOL

[bscinstnct]

> @farmer said:

> I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

 

On a case by case basis, I disagree. I could see this being the case if there was any question about the authenticity of the quotes. Or if it was a random/one off quote from some "PGA Tour pro". But there is no question of authenticity and the volume of quotes that support the same criticisms is clear.

 

And you would never get the frank opinions of so many Pros, HOF and Major Winners from the past and present unless they spoke anonymously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bladehunter]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

> > > > >

> > > > > The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

> > > >

> > > > Yep. I’d agree with the part of spilling DJ and Rory’s name. I’d have never done that. And would think anyone who did a coward.

> > > >

> > > > But. The fact that no correction will come from them ( Dj and Rory ) does show it to be accurate. And lends credibility to the comments as a whole.

> > > >

> > > > **As for the USga ability for retribution ? It’s almost endless as far as the game goes. From pairings to tee times to rulings. There are many ways to make a tournament more or less pleasurable for a player. **

> > >

> > > Can you give some (more specific) examples ?

> > >

> >

> > Well.

> >

> > You want a guy like Rory or DJ to stand a better chance to puke on the first two days. You pair him with the slowest player in the field. You watch the weather and See big chance of wind coming Friday after 12 . You be sure that player is first out Thursday morning so he hits the wind Friday afternoon. If there’s a particularly strict official with relief etc. you put him or her on the group. You want me to draw a scenario for a ruling out for you , it I’m not gong to take that bait. Those things have happened , can happen and each are dependent on several things. For us to act like a ruling body cannot possibly act in a favorable or less favorable manner at will , is just disingenuous talk.

>

> Do you actually have ANY evidence, or even reasonable suspicion, that any of these things have happened ? Or would happen ?

>

> Or is it just the normal everyday "conspiracy theorist" in you ? LOL

 

Been around those type people long enough to know that politics is the driving factor for every action. If you think politics doesn’t take precedent , I’m sorry to disappoint you. It’s never what you know it’s who. The relationship with who good or bad , makes a difference.

[nsxguy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > > > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

> > > > >

> > > > > Yep. I’d agree with the part of spilling DJ and Rory’s name. I’d have never done that. And would think anyone who did a coward.

> > > > >

> > > > > But. The fact that no correction will come from them ( Dj and Rory ) does show it to be accurate. And lends credibility to the comments as a whole.

> > > > >

> > > > > **As for the USga ability for retribution ? It’s almost endless as far as the game goes. From pairings to tee times to rulings. There are many ways to make a tournament more or less pleasurable for a player. **

> > > >

> > > > Can you give some (more specific) examples ?

> > > >

> > >

> > > Well.

> > >

> > > You want a guy like Rory or DJ to stand a better chance to puke on the first two days. You pair him with the slowest player in the field. You watch the weather and See big chance of wind coming Friday after 12 . You be sure that player is first out Thursday morning so he hits the wind Friday afternoon. If there’s a particularly strict official with relief etc. you put him or her on the group. You want me to draw a scenario for a ruling out for you , it I’m not gong to take that bait. Those things have happened , can happen and each are dependent on several things. For us to act like a ruling body cannot possibly act in a favorable or less favorable manner at will , is just disingenuous talk.

> >

> > Do you actually have ANY evidence, or even reasonable suspicion, that any of these things have happened ? Or would happen ?

> >

> > Or is it just the normal everyday "conspiracy theorist" in you ? LOL

>

> Been around those type people long enough to know that politics is the driving factor for every action. If you think politics doesn’t take precedent , I’m sorry to disappoint you. It’s never what you know it’s who. The relationship with who good or bad , makes a difference.

 

And to think you earlier called my "take" on something "spin".

 

OK, so I'll interpret your (non)answer. It's the latter. Thanks. LOL

[BNGL]

> @buckeyefl said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > > @Mikey5e said:

> > > > My hope is the USGA doesn't make the courses too easy for the US Open tournament. I don't think it would be very difficult to make a course difficult to play, but still maintain fairness.

> > > > As for the incident with Phil last year, he just hammered that first one too hard to stop in those conditions. His second putt in that direction he missed and it stopped, indicating that he should have been more careful on his first putt. There is no golf tournament as boring as a tournament where are the top 10 golfers are all 15 to 25 under par. When golf is that easy I shut the TV off.

> > >

> > > I have to disagree. 15-25 under is fantastic. To me the most locked in event I was into was Sei Young Kim at the Thornberry Classic when she shot 31 under 257. I want to see how good the pros are, because I can post 10-12 under for four rounds at Medalist or Jupiter Hills. I do agree the US Open should be a challenge but your last couple sentences to me I disagree with.

> >

> > I am assuming you like driver/wedge/1 putt birdies? Man, golf couldn't be more boring. I personally like course management type holes, where a golfer's skillset is really taxed. High pressure produces diamonds. Now I admit that gimmicky hard courses are ridiculous in their own way, but difficult challenging courses are what the US Open should be all about. I don't think most of the avid golf fans want to see 20 under par win the US Open, I think it's more entertaining for the winner to be at even-par or -3 or so. Driver/wedge/1 putt = turn the tv off.

>

> Do you think that is the only formula to shoot those scores?

 

It isn’t, but it is at the US Open. To me the course isn’t accessible for many players and that’s a good thing that it doesn’t favor anyone. But you have to allow for a majority of skill to shine through, too often it becomes so difficult particularly later on in the week that guys can only hit the center of the green or it bounds through. The question the US Open has traditionally asked, doesn’t allow for the right answer if that makes sense. At Augusta if I hit the right slope and shot it’s going to be close. At Oakmont for US Open prep it’s kind of a crap shoot. That’s where I have a problem...when good shots aren’t rewarded. I promise that you can have tough, but fair.

[ClintDagger]

I’m a supporter of the USGA but it’s indisputable that they’ve made a handful of course set up mistakes over the last 20 years and that should never happen. With that said, when they get it right it’s a refreshing change to see the US Open have its own identity. The USGA needs to put together a 20-30 year run of no Shinnecock type issues and then perhaps a lot of this will die down. I’ve been around the tour enough to know that while some of the criticism from the players is legitimate, a lot of it (in my experience most of it) is ego based complaining about feeling like they look foolish shooting numbers they don’t like to shoot. The USGA likes to take bomb & gouge, lawn dart golf and aggressive putting away from players and while other majors might take at most 2 of those away I think when all 3 are taken away that’s when you really hear the complaints. To me backing off on the green speed is the compromise that the USO should make but that’s just my $0.02.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

When you have to do dumb things to the course in attempt to protect par you've already done it wrong. Nothing wrong with 8-15 under (masters, pga, open) . Keeping it competitive and close to the end is what makes good golf.

[bladehunter]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > > > > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Yep. I’d agree with the part of spilling DJ and Rory’s name. I’d have never done that. And would think anyone who did a coward.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > But. The fact that no correction will come from them ( Dj and Rory ) does show it to be accurate. And lends credibility to the comments as a whole.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > **As for the USga ability for retribution ? It’s almost endless as far as the game goes. From pairings to tee times to rulings. There are many ways to make a tournament more or less pleasurable for a player. **

> > > > >

> > > > > Can you give some (more specific) examples ?

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > Well.

> > > >

> > > > You want a guy like Rory or DJ to stand a better chance to puke on the first two days. You pair him with the slowest player in the field. You watch the weather and See big chance of wind coming Friday after 12 . You be sure that player is first out Thursday morning so he hits the wind Friday afternoon. If there’s a particularly strict official with relief etc. you put him or her on the group. You want me to draw a scenario for a ruling out for you , it I’m not gong to take that bait. Those things have happened , can happen and each are dependent on several things. For us to act like a ruling body cannot possibly act in a favorable or less favorable manner at will , is just disingenuous talk.

> > >

> > > Do you actually have ANY evidence, or even reasonable suspicion, that any of these things have happened ? Or would happen ?

> > >

> > > Or is it just the normal everyday "conspiracy theorist" in you ? LOL

> >

> > Been around those type people long enough to know that politics is the driving factor for every action. If you think politics doesn’t take precedent , I’m sorry to disappoint you. It’s never what you know it’s who. The relationship with who good or bad , makes a difference.

>

> And to think you earlier called my "take" on something "spin".

>

> OK, so I'll interpret your (non)answer. It's the latter. Thanks. LOL

 

You can make up any answer you like. Just don’t get all bent out of shape because I won’t indulge you this time. I think I play along often enough. This one can’t be proven in either direction. And you wanting me to provide anecdotal evidence is only me leading myself to slaughter.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @davep043 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @farmer said:

> > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> >

> > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> >

> > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

>

> The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

 

I get what you're saying, but are we ignoring the context clues in the very next entry?:

 

--MULTIPLE PGA TOUR WINNER: We had about 10–15 guys who were willing to sit out after 2016. Some of them were big names—Dustin was one, Rory was another.

 

**--ANOTHER MAJOR CHAMPION AND FORMER WORLD NO. 1: I was prepared to do it [take part in a boycott]. Absolutely.**

 

I read that in DJ's voice.

 

[Darth Putter]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > PGA, The Masters, The Open seem to run good tournaments without **** up a golf course and without much controversy or criticism. But the usga certainly has had its disproportionately large problems. To deny that is blindness. So why the usga apologists come running in defending the indefensible?

>

> This is true. I don't recall any PGA course setups that were over the top. The only negative event at a PGA that I recall is the penalty on DJ at Whistling Straits.

 

Setups weren't the problem it was course selection that was the problem for the PGA. One that has been mostly resolved in recent years.

The biggest controversy in my lifetime for the PGA Championship is, of course, Shoal Creek in 1990.

[nsxguy]

> @canonlbp430 said:

> > @dalehead said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @BMC said:

> > > > Running the US Open is a very small part of what the USGA does. Some pampered tour pros just complaining.

> > > > Thousands of amateurs playing in hundreds of tournaments a year don't seem to have any problem with the USGA.

> > >

> > > Maybe because the USGA is good at amateur tournaments. The US Open, not so much.

> >

> > This is a good point. The USGA sets up courses for many championships including Senior US Open, Women's Open, and a slew of amateur championships, and they seem to do a good job. Why do they regularly have a problem with the Men's Open? My answer is they bring their preconceived ideas about how to run the Open with them and those ideas need to change.

> >

>

> The problem is from the format difference. In all the other events there is qualifying and match play, so no "scoreboard." The USGA obsession over the scoreboard along with them thinking they can set up the course on the edge for 8 hrs without any of the thousands of variables changing and pushing it to stupid town is their downfall. I had a past podcast saved with Mike Davis that I listened to the other day and he pretty much admitted to analyzing every single hole and setting it up individually to act the exact way he wants it to. **When you have 18 holes set up individually they can't all stay that way throughout the day as 100+ golfers pass through and weather changes**.

 

Is there any chance that Mike Davis and the rest of the USGA does not know this ?

 

 

[nsxguy]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

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

> > > > > > > > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > > > > > > > @farmer said:

> > > > > > > > > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Yep. I’d agree with the part of spilling DJ and Rory’s name. I’d have never done that. And would think anyone who did a coward.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > But. The fact that no correction will come from them ( Dj and Rory ) does show it to be accurate. And lends credibility to the comments as a whole.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > **As for the USga ability for retribution ? It’s almost endless as far as the game goes. From pairings to tee times to rulings. There are many ways to make a tournament more or less pleasurable for a player. **

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can you give some (more specific) examples ?

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Well.

> > > > >

> > > > > You want a guy like Rory or DJ to stand a better chance to puke on the first two days. You pair him with the slowest player in the field. You watch the weather and See big chance of wind coming Friday after 12 . You be sure that player is first out Thursday morning so he hits the wind Friday afternoon. If there’s a particularly strict official with relief etc. you put him or her on the group. You want me to draw a scenario for a ruling out for you , it I’m not gong to take that bait. Those things have happened , can happen and each are dependent on several things. For us to act like a ruling body cannot possibly act in a favorable or less favorable manner at will , is just disingenuous talk.

> > > >

> > > > Do you actually have ANY evidence, or even reasonable suspicion, that any of these things have happened ? Or would happen ?

> > > >

> > > > Or is it just the normal everyday "conspiracy theorist" in you ? LOL

> > >

> > > Been around those type people long enough to know that politics is the driving factor for every action. If you think politics doesn’t take precedent , I’m sorry to disappoint you. It’s never what you know it’s who. The relationship with who good or bad , makes a difference.

> >

> > And to think you earlier called my "take" on something "spin".

> >

> > OK, so I'll interpret your (non)answer. It's the latter. Thanks. LOL

>

> You can make up any answer you like. Just don’t get all bent out of shape because I won’t indulge you this time. I think I play along often enough. This one can’t be proven in either direction. And you wanting me to provide anecdotal evidence is only me leading myself to slaughter.

 

LOL

 

I'm not making anything up. Your "non answer" answer tells me all I need to know buddy. No worries.

[davep043]

> @"Ashley Schaeffer" said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @farmer said:

> > > > I hate anonymous quotes. If you believe what you're saying, say it for attribution. Some of the criticisms are correct, but the USGA might take greater notice if name guys publicly aired their complaints.

> > >

> > > Sure they would. Then retribution if given the chance.

> > >

> > > It was stated early that someone would call fowl of the quotes being anonymous. I find anonymous quotes to generally be near 100 % more accurate depiction of what people really think. People will say the truth much easier if not under duress of facing consequences for their true thoughts.

> >

> > The USGA has pretty limited ability to get revenge on their critics, witness JT and Rickie. To be honest, it seemed pretty gutless for one anonymous respondent to name two specific players who were ready to boycott in 2017. If DJ or Rory want to tell the world that they would have joined a boycott, that's fine, but the names of those who were in the private discussions shouldn't have been released by someone hiding behind anonymity.

>

> I get what you're saying, but are we ignoring the context clues in the very next entry?:

>

> --MULTIPLE PGA TOUR WINNER: We had about 10–15 guys who were willing to sit out after 2016. Some of them were big names—Dustin was one, Rory was another.

>

> **--ANOTHER MAJOR CHAMPION AND FORMER WORLD NO. 1: I was prepared to do it [take part in a boycott]. Absolutely.**

>

> I read that in DJ's voice.

>

 

I read those too, a few anonymous players claimed that they were willing to boycott. But not one of them said it for the record. Nobody said "Please use my name on this, I'm __________ and I definitely would have stayed away". We have no way of knowing how many players really WERE willing to boycott, beyond this one anonymous voice. You have 4 individuals who have anonymously said they would boycott, an anonymous claim that there were actually 10 to 15 guys willing, with only two names put forward. I don't doubt that there were talks, and a few players willing, but its hard to have any confidence in how wide-spread the boycott could have been.

Its also hard for me to believe that Dustin would have turned down his chance to defend his title, but who really knows.