Pros and others throw USGA under the bus.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> 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.

 

Totally. To that end, if you are going to insist on changing the course, change it to make back nine Sunday fireworks possible.

[Darth Putter]

> @DavePelz4 said:

> 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.

>

>

 

The blame for this goes to..........Olympic.

 

Let the USGA trick up the course and make it stupid hard and Hogan wins (Oakland Hills) no problem.

Let the club trick up the course and make it stupid hard and Hogan loses to Jack Fleck, now the USGA needs to take over course setup every year.

[North Texas]

Interesting take from Rory. Seems reasonable enough.

 

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rory-mcilroy-says-players-should-give-usga-chance-to-redeem-itself-at-pebble-beach

[Darth Putter]

Justin Thomas still not happy with USGA and was not one of the people quoted in the article.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/justin-thomas-remains-upset-with-the-usga-hopes-players-will-keep-calling-out-the-governing-body

 

Rory willing to give USGA benefit of the doubt for now.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rory-mcilroy-says-players-should-give-usga-chance-to-redeem-itself-at-pebble-beach

[buckeyefl]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @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 ?

>

>

 

Apparently.

[davep043]

Justin saying "we don't want to be bratty" seems kind of hollow. What I'd like to see from him is more long-form criticisms, rather than twitter-b**ching. If there are problems, and there certainly have been some with the US Open at times, they're not going to be addressed in 140 characters or less. That will also require a media outlet willing to publish longer-form discussions, and readers willing to go past the big print on the first page of the article.

[Ashley Schaeffer]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"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.

 

Yep.

-On one hand, we have an assertion that there were 10-15 guys willing to boycott, with 4 backing it up (one of which seems an awful lot like DJ).

-On the other hand, we have zero evidence to refute the assertion; we just can't be 100% certain that it's true.

It's a classic toss up.

[Roadking2003]

> @Mikey5e said:

> I am assuming you like driver/wedge/1 putt birdies?

How about driver/wedge/one-putt pars? Would that make you feel better? Just change "par" and the problem is solved.

 

>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.

 

I'm a huge US Open fan and don't care if the winning score is plus 10 or minus 20. A winning score around par adds no value to me.

 

 

[GeorgeHWB]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @"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.

 

They ARE the problem.

[buckeyefl]

> @davep043 said:

> Justin saying "we don't want to be bratty" seems kind of hollow. What I'd like to see from him is more long-form criticisms, rather than twitter-b**ching. If there are problems, and there certainly have been some with the US Open at times, they're not going to be addressed in 140 characters or less. That will also require a media outlet willing to publish longer-form discussions, and readers willing to go past the big print on the first page of the article.

 

This has literally been happening for decades every year in the month of June but certain people insist they know best. I posted a link multiple times that has multiple players, including a certain farm animal, giving critiques along with the non reaction by the powers that be. The article is dated and plenty has happened since those incidents with the situation being critiqued again and no reaction, again. It's like the movie Groundhog Day.

[Roadking2003]

> @davep043 said:

> Justin saying "we don't want to be bratty" seems kind of hollow. What I'd like to see from him is more long-form criticisms, rather than twitter-b**ching. If there are problems, and there certainly have been some with the US Open at times, they're not going to be addressed in 140 characters or less. That will also require a media outlet willing to publish longer-form discussions, and readers willing to go past the big print on the first page of the article.

 

The USGA doesn't need any more input from anybody. They have received valuable input for quite some time from a variety of sources. They just need to quit worshipping par and quit trying to take the greens to the edge of unplayable.

[Ferguson]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > Justin saying "we don't want to be bratty" seems kind of hollow. What I'd like to see from him is more long-form criticisms, rather than twitter-b**ching. If there are problems, and there certainly have been some with the US Open at times, they're not going to be addressed in 140 characters or less. That will also require a media outlet willing to publish longer-form discussions, and readers willing to go past the big print on the first page of the article.

>

> The USGA doesn't need any more input from anybody. They have received valuable input for quite some time from a variety of sources. They just need to quit worshipping par and quit trying to take the greens to the edge of unplayable.

 

What's wrong with testing the limits of professional golfers?

 

[ebrasmus21]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > Justin saying "we don't want to be bratty" seems kind of hollow. What I'd like to see from him is more long-form criticisms, rather than twitter-b**ching. If there are problems, and there certainly have been some with the US Open at times, they're not going to be addressed in 140 characters or less. That will also require a media outlet willing to publish longer-form discussions, and readers willing to go past the big print on the first page of the article.

> >

> > The USGA doesn't need any more input from anybody. They have received valuable input for quite some time from a variety of sources. They just need to quit worshipping par and quit trying to take the greens to the edge of unplayable.

>

> What's wrong with testing the limits of professional golfers?

>

 

Lol.

[bladehunter]

> @"Darth Putter" said:

> Justin Thomas still not happy with USGA and was not one of the people quoted in the article.

> https://www.golfdigest.com/story/justin-thomas-remains-upset-with-the-usga-hopes-players-will-keep-calling-out-the-governing-body

>

> Rory willing to give USGA benefit of the doubt for now.

> https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rory-mcilroy-says-players-should-give-usga-chance-to-redeem-itself-at-pebble-beach

 

Rory also said in the presser that they should use people who setup courses everyday for setup. He didn’t really cut them much slack. Just side stepped the heat on him.

[bladehunter]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @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.

 

I know you are , but what am I. To get down to that level.

[bladehunter]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > Justin saying "we don't want to be bratty" seems kind of hollow. What I'd like to see from him is more long-form criticisms, rather than twitter-b**ching. If there are problems, and there certainly have been some with the US Open at times, they're not going to be addressed in 140 characters or less. That will also require a media outlet willing to publish longer-form discussions, and readers willing to go past the big print on the first page of the article.

> >

> > The USGA doesn't need any more input from anybody. They have received valuable input for quite some time from a variety of sources. They just need to quit worshipping par and quit trying to take the greens to the edge of unplayable.

>

> What's wrong with testing the limits of professional golfers?

>

 

Nothing. It’s when they cross the limits of the course that heads should roll.

[davep043]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > Justin Thomas still not happy with USGA and was not one of the people quoted in the article.

> > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/justin-thomas-remains-upset-with-the-usga-hopes-players-will-keep-calling-out-the-governing-body

> >

> > Rory willing to give USGA benefit of the doubt for now.

> > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rory-mcilroy-says-players-should-give-usga-chance-to-redeem-itself-at-pebble-beach

>

> Rory also said in the presser that they should use people who setup courses everyday for setup. He didn’t really cut them much slack. Just side stepped the heat on him.

 

I think that both Rory and Justin would like the courses to be set up by the PGA Tour staff, because they prefer the conditions they see on the PGA Tour every week. I said it before, most of these guys hate being forced to change, to adapt to differing conditions, to learn different rules. That doesn't defend the USGA's past mistakes, but I prefer to see the players severely tested, I don't care to see "another week on the PGA Tour".

[braincramp52]

I think the USGA screws courses up on purpose just to increase TV ratings and ticket sales. Face it, we watch and attend not to see who wins but what kind of weird crap will happen next! :D This is sarcasm for those of you that can't wait to jump all over me.

[Mikey5e]

I think it would be accurate to say that most golfers who watch the US Open on TV enjoy the idea of having a more than average difficult course being played. I think it is only natural to want to see the best in the world challenged by difficult course characteristics. Overly fast greens with impossible pin locations can ruin the game as well, and I don't think fans enjoy that. There are many ways to keep the course challenging beyond overly tricky greens, and for the US Open, a difficult course set up here's most enjoyable.

[BNGL]

> @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

 

Out of curiosity are you suggesting that setting up each hole individually is wrong?

[Tasals]

> @BNGL said:

> > @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

>

> Out of curiosity are you suggesting that setting up each hole individually is wrong?

 

I read his criticism is that Davis plans the hole for the first few groups and expects it to play that exact way all the time regardless of weather conditions of having how many golfers and caddies walking across the greens. I mean you can plan the hole out in a vacuum but golf isnt played in a bio-dome, you have to be cognizant of how the set up will change over the course of the tournament round.

[nsxguy]

> @Tasals said:

> > @BNGL said:

> > > @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

> >

> > Out of curiosity are you suggesting that setting up each hole individually is wrong?

>

> I read his criticism is that Davis plans the hole for the first few groups and expects it to play that exact way all the time regardless of weather conditions of having how many golfers and caddies walking across the greens. I mean you can plan the hole out in a vacuum but golf isnt played in a bio-dome, you have to be cognizant of how the set up will change over the course of the tournament round.

 

Any suggestion that Mike Davis and the USGA don't realize conditions change during the day is ridiculous in the extreme.

[Terry Gold]

> @davep043 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > Justin Thomas still not happy with USGA and was not one of the people quoted in the article.

> > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/justin-thomas-remains-upset-with-the-usga-hopes-players-will-keep-calling-out-the-governing-body

> > >

> > > Rory willing to give USGA benefit of the doubt for now.

> > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rory-mcilroy-says-players-should-give-usga-chance-to-redeem-itself-at-pebble-beach

> >

> > Rory also said in the presser that they should use people who setup courses everyday for setup. He didn’t really cut them much slack. Just side stepped the heat on him.

>

> I think that both Rory and Justin would like the courses to be set up by the PGA Tour staff, because they prefer the conditions they see on the PGA Tour every week. I said it before, most of these guys hate being forced to change, to adapt to differing conditions, to learn different rules. That doesn't defend the USGA's past mistakes, but I prefer to see the players severely tested, I don't care to see "another week on the PGA Tour".

 

But that isn't what Rory said at all. To the contrary in fact:

“I guess in my head growing up watching the U.S. Opens, that was what my perception of a U.S. Open was. It was tight fairways, it was thick rough. It was a premium on accuracy and precision,” McIlroy said. “And I think some of the golf courses we played and some of the setups over the last couple of years have went a little bit away from that. We play one Open Championship a year; we don't need to play two. I think it’s just lost its identity in terms of what it is, and I’d like to see them go back to that, because it worked. It really worked.”

 

 

[Kevinnz]

If i was a pro i'd be so excited to see a tough course setup like the us open and try my best to get the lowest score. I would go back home and practise more if i didnt score the lowest.

[Ferguson]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Ferguson said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > Justin saying "we don't want to be bratty" seems kind of hollow. What I'd like to see from him is more long-form criticisms, rather than twitter-b**ching. If there are problems, and there certainly have been some with the US Open at times, they're not going to be addressed in 140 characters or less. That will also require a media outlet willing to publish longer-form discussions, and readers willing to go past the big print on the first page of the article.

> > >

> > > The USGA doesn't need any more input from anybody. They have received valuable input for quite some time from a variety of sources. They just need to quit worshipping par and quit trying to take the greens to the edge of unplayable.

> >

> > What's wrong with testing the limits of professional golfers?

> >

>

> Nothing. It’s when they cross the limits of the course that heads should roll.

 

Let's test that logic and look at this from a circumstance to which all of us can relate. So when the grounds people at your club put too much sand on the a few greens after punching, the club should fire the people involved with the decision about who purchased the sand?

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @nsxguy said:

> > @Tasals said:

> > > @BNGL said:

> > > > @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

> > >

> > > Out of curiosity are you suggesting that setting up each hole individually is wrong?

> >

> > I read his criticism is that Davis plans the hole for the first few groups and expects it to play that exact way all the time regardless of weather conditions of having how many golfers and caddies walking across the greens. I mean you can plan the hole out in a vacuum but golf isnt played in a bio-dome, you have to be cognizant of how the set up will change over the course of the tournament round.

>

> Any suggestion that Mike Davis and the USGA don't realize conditions change during the day is ridiculous in the extreme.

 

Maybe they realize that but don't do anything about it. Regardless they've screwed up too many times, sometimes lied and passed blame. Too often us open's has had course issues and controversy while other majors generally manage to avoid this.

[bladehunter]

> @Ferguson said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Ferguson said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > Justin saying "we don't want to be bratty" seems kind of hollow. What I'd like to see from him is more long-form criticisms, rather than twitter-b**ching. If there are problems, and there certainly have been some with the US Open at times, they're not going to be addressed in 140 characters or less. That will also require a media outlet willing to publish longer-form discussions, and readers willing to go past the big print on the first page of the article.

> > > >

> > > > The USGA doesn't need any more input from anybody. They have received valuable input for quite some time from a variety of sources. They just need to quit worshipping par and quit trying to take the greens to the edge of unplayable.

> > >

> > > What's wrong with testing the limits of professional golfers?

> > >

> >

> > Nothing. It’s when they cross the limits of the course that heads should roll.

>

> Let's test that logic and look at this from a circumstance to which all of us can relate. So when the grounds people at your club put too much sand on the a few greens after punching, the club should fire the people involved with the decision about who purchased the sand?

>

 

I don’t follow.

 

I’m saying that when the USga pushes greens to the point of having to paint them because they are dying , then it’s past too far and whom ever made the decision to push them too far shouldn’t be there anymore.

[bladehunter]

> @"Terry Gold" said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @bladehunter said:

> > > > @"Darth Putter" said:

> > > > Justin Thomas still not happy with USGA and was not one of the people quoted in the article.

> > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/justin-thomas-remains-upset-with-the-usga-hopes-players-will-keep-calling-out-the-governing-body

> > > >

> > > > Rory willing to give USGA benefit of the doubt for now.

> > > > https://www.golfdigest.com/story/rory-mcilroy-says-players-should-give-usga-chance-to-redeem-itself-at-pebble-beach

> > >

> > > Rory also said in the presser that they should use people who setup courses everyday for setup. He didn’t really cut them much slack. Just side stepped the heat on him.

> >

> > I think that both Rory and Justin would like the courses to be set up by the PGA Tour staff, because they prefer the conditions they see on the PGA Tour every week. I said it before, most of these guys hate being forced to change, to adapt to differing conditions, to learn different rules. That doesn't defend the USGA's past mistakes, but I prefer to see the players severely tested, I don't care to see "another week on the PGA Tour".

>

> But that isn't what Rory said at all. To the contrary in fact:

> “I guess in my head growing up watching the U.S. Opens, that was what my perception of a U.S. Open was. It was tight fairways, it was thick rough. It was a premium on accuracy and precision,” McIlroy said. “And I think some of the golf courses we played and some of the setups over the last couple of years have went a little bit away from that. We play one Open Championship a year; we don't need to play two. I think it’s just lost its identity in terms of what it is, and I’d like to see them go back to that, because it worked. It really worked.”

>

>

 

He did say “ I don’t setup golf courses and I don’t setup tournaments. I think they should seek the advise of those that do. “. Go to the 115 mark here and Listen. Or better. Just listen to it all.

 

https://www.golfchannel.com/news/rory-mcilroy-could-be-problem-if-usga-cant-redeem-themselves-pebble-beach

[LICC]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Mikey5e said:

> > I am assuming you like driver/wedge/1 putt birdies?

> How about driver/wedge/one-putt pars? Would that make you feel better? Just change "par" and the problem is solved.

>

> >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.

>

> I'm a huge US Open fan and don't care if the winning score is plus 10 or minus 20. A winning score around par adds no value to me.

>

>

 

If the US Open becomes a minus 20 winner event, it would pretty much be just any other tour event only with more fanfare. The US Open should have the identity of being a tougher test. I agree that setting up for an even par winner is misguided, but scores should be higher than regular events. The USGA for years had a good formula for this- take a great course, add some length, narrow the fairways, grow the rough, and speed up the greens. That should work fine. But they have gone overboard too much in recent years. And a Mike Davis has been trying to change that formula a bit and have it both ways- relatively wide fairways but still even par scoring. He tried that at Erin Hills and Shinnecock and it didn’t work. What the PGA just did at Bethpage was excellent and what the US Open should follow.

 

 

 

 

[JohnnyCashForever]

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I'm going to make an argument for the USGA that its apologists are too lazy or stupid to make on their own.

 

Since Mike Davis's tenure, the US Open has produced the most number of "worthy" winners among the three majors with a full field. To keep it objective, I'm defining "worthy" as multiple major champions. It could be defined in a more qualitative way, but I think the results would be similar. Mike Davis took over the US Open set up in 1997. Since then, there have been 22 US and British Opens, and 23 PGA Championships. Here are the number of "worthy" winners in that span:

 

US Open: 15/22 (68%)

The British Open: 12/22 (55%)

The PGA Championship: 13/23 (57%)

 

BTW, the Masters had the highest percentage of worthy winners, 17/23 (74%), but the field in that major is limited and thus more likely to produce a worthy winner.

 

The US Open produces more worthy winners!

 

I'm sure there are many more objective arguments one could make for the USGA instead of reflexively genuflecting to the blue blazer, but I think I've done my part.